Burning a Game

Discussion in 'Debate Corner' started by NemesisPrime, Oct 12, 2011.

  1. Always Dance Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    220
    Piracy is not stealing. Stealing is defined taking another's possessions with no intention of returning it. The definition implies loss. There is absolutely no loss if I pirate a game I cannot afford.
    If my neighbor builds a statue and I like it, and I take a rock and make a statue that looks like his, is it stealing? My neighbor lost absolutely nothing- I just had the information to make my rock look like his rock. That's exactly what piracy is. If I know how to make the bumps on my CD look like the bumps on your CD- how could you possibly call that stealing?
    Wow, I never, ever thought I would meet someone who would use something as immoral as the law as a moral code. So if something's illegal, it's morally wrong to you? Not putting on your seat belt is morally wrong? Owning incandescent light bulbs is morally wrong? In most states, gay marriage is morally wrong? Think about what you say before you say it please.
    Oh okay, we're just disregarding scientific studies now. Cool. Hey everybody, remember that study about how McDonald's makes you fat? It doesn't matter now! Scientific studies don't prove anything according to this post! Let's go eat all the McDonald's we want!
    Sorry idealist, but this isn't possible for everyone. Have you seen the economy lately? I live in a rural area, I don't have neighbors. And if they did, I doubt they would pay me to wash their car.
    Actually, there are plenty of artists who support downloading their music. System of a Down, The Cancer Bats, MC Lars, I could go on. In the end musicians do NOT make money from record sales. Most of the money when you buy a CD goes to the record company- and don't you give me any crap, those people are loaded. Musicians only really make money off of concerts, which you can't pirate.
    And once more, not being able to afford a game is different than not thinking it's worth paying for.
    Yes.
     
  2. EvilMan_89 Code Master

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    203
    yes, while it's technically not stealing, i think the point that anti-piracy people are trying to make is the effect it can have on companies' potential profit.

    i never really liked that argument because i don't believe that people who pirate the games are the people who can't afford them. video games aren't really that expensive to be out of reach for poor people. even really poor people own video game consoles and buy games. if they can afford the hardware to play the games (the systems), and can afford to make monthly payments for internet service (which is often used to pirate games) and can buy the discs to burn them on, i don't think buying a video game is financially out of reach. the people who can't afford the video games, i would think are people who don't even have a video game console. yes, yes, i know there's kind of an assumption i'm making that people who play video games can afford to buy them, but i don't believe they are entirely baseless.
     
  3. Always Dance Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    220
    I think the vast majority of people making the argument about not being able to afford them are people like myself, kids. I didn't buy the consoles that I have, my parents bought a Wii for my little brother that they let me use. They refuse to buy me games for it because they see it as a waste of time. I own a 3DS that I bought for myself when I DID have a job- a time during which I never pirated anything. Lastly I have a PC, which my dad bought for me, for school. I can't pay for anything myself and my parents refuse to buy anything for me. I pirate. I have no intention of pirating when I can actually afford games.
     
  4. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    So I made a really long post in which I defended my side of the argument and my parents stupid computer lost my post. AGAIN. I really need to learn to copy my posts just in case, but right now, I don't have time to write the whole thing again. So, I'll just have to take a rain-check and get back to you all on the subject.

    I HATE THIS COMPUTER AND WANT A LAPTOP OF MY OWN SO BADLY YOU ALL HAVE NO IDEA!!! I SWEAR, I"M NOT EVEN JOKING!!!

    gtg. DX

    Alright, here I go again.

    Firstly, I just want to say that I’m sorry for so blatantly stating my opinions as fact and making it seem like I’m forcing them on you. I’m not trying to force my personal beliefs on others, I’m just trying to say what my beliefs are.

    As for defending my arguments, I’ll start with Makaze’s and work my way through his until I get to slaughtermatic’s. (Unless my point works for portions of both posts, in which case, I’ll take them both on at once.

    Makaze, you said
    Also, Slaughtermatic said this:
    My response to this is simple. Although the law, in and of itself, is imperfect, it is still the current standard of right and wrong, and should not be taken lightly. I agree, there are some laws in place that shouldn’t be, and at the same time, there are laws that should exist that don’t. For example, in the city of Toledo, Ohio, it is illegal to set off any form of fireworks other then sparklers and smoke bombs. This is a law that doesn’t make much sense to me personally, but it is still a law and I need to respect that. Besides, if we can’t look to the law to govern our actions, then to what do we look? Without the rules of a society, the world soon becomes survival of the fittest, and if that happens, then we as the computer geeks don’t stand a chance. We can’t just pick and choose which laws we follow, because breaking an “unimportant†law will only lead to breaking bigger and bigger ones. For example, it’s just one short step from driving without a seat belt to driving without a license, and then there’s pirating, and then it’s on to shoplifting, and then stealing cars, which can lead to robbing a bank, and eventually, your conscience is gone and you get people who are capable of murder. Picking which laws you do or do not follow is a very dangerous game to play. I also want to say this: It is not always the illegal action that is morally wrong, but rather, the disobedience and disregard for the law itself that I find issue with. HOWEVER, that is just me, and I’m not trying to force these thoughts on others.

    Next, Makaze asked this:
    And Slaughtermatic, you said this:
    Well, you have to look at it this way. Making CD’s is a very expensive process. Firstly, the record companies need to contract musicians, which, in and of itself, has to cost something. Then the music must be recorded. The record company has to pay for a soundbooth, and they have to pay for equipment, sound systems, microphones, cables, all sorts of stuff. They also have to pay to make the CD’s. They have to pay for those plastic cases. They have to pay to make the lyrics sheets, most of which include pictures of the artist. In order to accomplish that, they have to hire a photographer, who usually charges quite a bit because they also need equipment. My mom used to be in photography, and it’s not cheap. You have to have lights, you have to have a good camera, you have to have backdrops and you have to have stands to hold the backdrops up. If you take outdoor shots, you need a special kind of camera or you need portable lights to offset the light from the sun. It’s all pretty expensive, and they need to charge for it. Anyway, back to the record company. They then need to advertise the musician, because if nobody knows the artist, no one will buy his CD. They have to pay for posters, and they havet o pay for commercial slots, and sometimes they have promo events, like radio contests and stuff, which costs money. Then they mass produce the CD’s, and ship it out to stores all over the country (costing money) where the CD’s are put on the store shelves. Once there, a pirate purchases the CD and uploads it online, making it available for free download. Let’s say that 25 people download the CD. That’s 25 sales that could have been made that weren’t. CD’s sell at Wal-mart for about 7 to 40 dollars, so assuming that the CD in question is $11.50, how much is that, 287 dollars, fifty cents? (Forgive me if that’s wrong. I stink at math.) That’s $287.50 that the record company doesn’t get, and there’s nothing they can do about it. To me, that sounds like wealth being forcibly transferred.

    Makaze, you also said this:
    You, although your loss is not monetary, still consider yourself to be victimized, and you are justified in doing so. How much more are the record companies victimized by the loss of these record sales?

    Now onto Slaughtermatic. You made the statement
    I didn’t mean to say that we should disregard scientific studies as garbage, I just meant that we shouldn’t use these studies to justify our (for lack of a better term) wrongdoings.

    You also said:
    I’m sorry to hear that. Lol, I’m sort of in the same situation. It’s a rough spot, but I still don’t believe I can justify doing something illegal. That’s why I don’t have a laptop. Or a video game system more advanced than a DS lite. Or any video games or CD’s I didn’t get for Christmas last year. And it’s why I live with my parents and eat their food.

    And finally, you say this:
    So those artists are fine with making their music free. Good for them, I respect that. However, there are also plenty of artists who have expressed displeasure with pirating. And as for record sales only making money for the record companies, who do you think pays the musicians? Their paycheck comes from the record companies. Also, them being rich does not justify pirating their stuff. Robin Hood was a great idea, but impractical.

    Well, that’s about it. But you all should be proud again. My computer messed up and I lost my post. I had to type the whole post all over again. XP
     
  5. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Whether or not you are forcing them on us is not the question. If you state a notion as a fact in this section, I will feel obligated to correct it.
    The law is based on the current standard more than it defines it. People make things into laws. Laws do not create themselves. Laws and morals are not even remotely similar concepts. I may have a certain set of morals but that does make them laws. And there may be a set of laws being enforced even though no one holds that set of morals personally. Some good examples of this are laws of physics. Or perhaps the laws of a god or another religious tenet. Appealing to the way things are currently done as a standard to judge value by leaves you with a problem. It leads into appealing to the status quo. Things are the way they should be, you should not question it.

    You can look to your own moral and ethical compass. Act as you see fit. It works wonders and hurts the fewest people. If you did not have to pay for a police agency, then you could donate to or join a community watch or pay a private defense agency to watch over your property. You do not need a government to live a decent life, and in fact it is easier to live one without a government to take your money and use it for harmful things.

    You should spread this into more paragraphs. Hard to navigate.

    Coming back from my earlier statement, laws are based on someone's morality. If people are so evil as you think they are without laws, then why do laws exist? Surely the majority of people would overruled the few who wanted laws if that were the case. Your argument is invalid because people are naturally decent, and laws are made to stop minorities from harming the majority. The number of violent criminals is small compared to decent people with or without a system of law, and one crime does not beget another unless you lump them together. You put a petty criminal in a prison with murderers, and he will be more likely to become one because of it. Specifically with victimless crimes like drug violations and things of the sort, this is often the main reason why you think you can make an argument for it leading to violent crimes. Treat anyone like a beast and they may become one.

    I will disregard any law if I bring loss to no one while breaking it. No laws are unimportant, because they harm someone. If a law exists, someone somewhere is getting beaten up over breaking it. I view any law that does more harm than the act it is prohibiting as ethically wrong and logically unsound. When I break a law, I do not do it simply because I do not care, but because I care about those people who were harmed over it. Civil disobedience is the only way that things get changed, and I appreciate sharing solidarity through it. I would want someone to do the same if someone kidnapped me, took my money or beat me to the ground because they had a piece of paper saying I should not do something.
    Okay, so they make CDs. They keep those CDs. I have my own CD, and I make it look exactly like theirs with my laser. It is your fault for not making your CD more worth buying than me using my laser to improve my own CD to match yours. If I like your CD, I will buy it anyway because I know that you cannot do it for free, but I do not have to. An artist is at the mercy of buyer's interest in his art. It is the same as selling a painting. If someone else paints a replica instead of buying the original from you, then your painting was not worth buying, or your price was not reasonable. It is as simple as that.

    I fail to see how it is being forcibly transfered. Do they ever have this money? It sounds like they transfer it willingly into sound equipment, and then willingly into CDs, and then willing back into money again when the guy buys it to upload it. At what point does someone forcibly transfer their wealth from them? They did not make any trades against their wills in this process, and they kept all of the materials that they did not trade willingly. I see no force involved in this transaction.
    Why am I justified? If my loss is not material, then I can claim any loss that I think exists and it will be just as valid. You said something that offended me today, and I lost time thinking about it. Is this valid, or was it not my choice to get offended in the first place? Just as it is my choice to get upset if someone steals my idea. I lost nothing but my pride, and I am willing to punish them for it. You have to have to explain why it is justified if you wish to keep claiming it.
    Your only argument for them being wrongdoings is that someone else said they are. Studies would overrule that third person's opinion no matter what position he/she holds. A scientific study does not justify a wrongdoing, it proves that it is not a wrongdoing in the first place.
    He just said that they pay their own paychecks with concerts. Weren't you reading?

    If the artists who give their stuff away for free do well without hurting anybody, then the artists that make sure that laws like this exist are ruining lives with copyright lawsuits and jail time because they want to control every single copy of their ideas. They are harming people by putting them in debt or in bad conditions while they would have been fine without it if their music was good enough, like their file sharing competitors. Do you see where I am coming from?
    This happens to me every once in a while, but it is impressive that you posted anyway. At least you are trying.
     
  6. Always Dance Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    220
    You're avoiding the question. Nothing you said has any bearing on whether the law is a moral standard, and it's not. And as Makaze said, I will disregard any law that doesn't exist to prevent harm to anyone but myself. And that's not immoral, because the law has NOTHING to do with morality. Also, the part that I bolded is a logical fallacy. I don't quite remember the name of it though, maybe someone could help me out on that. But it's very, very untrue. I pirate, but I don't murder.
    You are once again ignoring the question, you didn't even quote the main part of my argument. You have proved that a record company spends money to make CD's. Fantastic. That does not prove or even imply loss caused by pirating. There is no wealth being transferred. They had the CD, they keep the CD. I didn't have the money to buy it, I still don't. They had X amount of money, they leave the situation with X amount of money. No transfer of anything.
    Makaze answered this perfectly, so you can read her response to it.
    Well, we differ there. I don't see breaking the law as morally wrong, you do. That isn't going to change.
    And you once again avoid the point. The record companies don't pay the musicians CRAP. They make almost nothing from record sales. I just said that they make their money from concerts, and that's a fact. I am not trying to "Justify" (again I don't believe it's wrong in the first place) piracy due to the companies' wealth, all I'm saying is I won't hear any sob story you want to give me about how they're losing money.

    Because no matter how many pirates there are, there will ALWAYS be little girls who want Justin Beiber CD's, and there will ALWAYS be the parents who don't know how to so much as turn on a computer who will go to Walmart and buy twenty. That's why record companies are so rich right now. Scarily rich, in fact, to the point where I'm uncomfortable with it, but that's another argument.
     
  7. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    I think you mean the slippery slope fallacy (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose).

    This also works against her own words. In claiming that it leads to worse things, she appears to be claiming that a study (not named) justifies the wrong of hurting nonviolent people. Which she denied later in her argument...
     
  8. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    Alright, here we go.

    In regards to your first argument, about law being based on morality and people being “basically good”, well, I’m going to leave that alone because that’s a different debate altogether, and I have nothing more to say about law in regards to piracy.
    For this statement, however,
    I must say I have no idea what this means. Sorry for the inconvenience, but could you clarify this for me?

    With your second argument, about the forcibly transferring wealth, I’ve already exhausted my knowledge in my previous argument. If you don’t see that as the forcible transfer of wealth, then there’s nothing I could do or say to change your mind. That’s alright with me, you’re entitled to have your opinions.

    Next on the list, you said this:
    I would like to say, straight off the bat, I apologize for anything I said or did that offended you. I really do hate being offensive, which is why, lol, I usually stay away from debate corner. So I really am sorry for whatever I said that offended you.
    You say that you lost nothing but your pride. Still, that is a loss, no matter how small. To clarify, I looked up victim on dictionary.com. This is what it is defined as.
    vic·timvɪk tɪm /noun

    1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.

    2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.

    3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war victims.

    4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.
    Read option number two. That describes your situation with your friend, therefore, according to the dictionary, you were victimized. Also, I think that piracy falls under this category as well, under the term “swindler”. A media pirate swindles the record companies out of their money by making their product available for either free download or even a cheaper price. According to the dictionary, piracy is not victimless. On to the next statement!

    Alright, you say that scientific studies change the standard of right and wrong. To some extent, that’s true. However, I believe that in this case, the increase of an artist’s popularity does not make up for the loss of money. Let’s say, for example, the artist Owl City.I love this artist! I really enjoy his music, and let’s say that I have a friend who has never heard of him. If I burn a copy of my CD and bring it to her, she might decide she loves him too, but then she already has a copy of his CD, why should she buy a new one? His popularity increased, but his record sales did not. I honestly do not see how piracy helps an artist.

    Makaze, you say this:
    Yes, I was reading what he said about concerts being an artist’s ONLY source of income, but I must say I find this a little hard to believe. Don’t they get any pay at all from the record companies? If I wanted to make music, and I realized it was a job that only pays when I’m on tour, I don’t think I’d want to work that career. However, I must admit, I really don’t know much about an artist’s paycheck; for all I know, Slaughtermatic might be completely right. If he is, then I apologize for my disbelief, and I’ll try to be less skeptical next time I read a post from him.

    As for the artist’s who give their music away for free, that’s great. I’m glad that they can do this, and I think it’s nice for the public that they can have music without having to worry about paying. There are a lot of people out there who can’t afford music, and I believe that this is a great thing for those artists’s to do. However, you can’t stick every artist in the same group with these that can afford to give away their music. Not every artist has the ability to do so, some can’t afford it, some have record companies that won’t allow, it the point is, an artist’s music is to some extent, their source of income. To take that away from them because they “shouldn’t have charged for it anyway” is just as wrong (in my opinion) as them charging so much for it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to justify the amount of money an artist charges, I’m just saying that there’s fault on both sides. I think a certain amount of integrity is in order, both from the artist and the consumer. The artist should make his music inexpensive and easy to obtain, and a consumer should at least attempt to purchase the music legally. Again, I will use Owl City as an example of integrity among artists. Not too long ago, Owl City produced an album called “All Things Bright and Beautiful.” Good stuff, you should check it out. When the CD was released on iTunes, the original price was (if I remember correctly) $11.50. Owl City heard about this, and talked with his producer and iTunes and had them change the price to $9.50, because he thought they charged too much. He also offered refunds to any customer who had paid the original price. I think that was a good display of artist integrity. I honestly don’t think he ruined any lives or put anybody in debt by charging $9.50. But still, I have no doubt in my mind that a pirate got this music for free, even though the artist tried to make it easier for his music to be obtained legally. Also, people fail to take into account sites like e-bay or Amazon, where you can sometimes find used CD’s that are still in good condition for cheaper prices. In my opinion, there is no need for piracy, as there are several options to choose from. And even if you can’t afford to buy things used, you still have those artists’ who do make their music available,there’s no need to pirate from those who charge.

    Well, I think I’ve covered everything, and I again want to apologize for whatever I said that offended you, or anyone else. I would also like to apologize in advance for anything I might say that offends; I’ve tried to be careful to be as inoffensive as possible.
     
  9. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    Then I suggest leaving the debate. That is what your first post was about, and the reason we are arguing.
    Someone may mug me and call it a fine, like a bridge toll or some-such, or kidnap and call it arrest, or beat me up with a mix of the other two because of some reason or another, such as my not being okay with being kidnapped and shaking off an aggressive hand.

    There is a quote that expresses this clearly.

    "If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law." ~ Edward Abbey

    The same is true of each and every law, no matter how petty or insignificant. Do you understand now?
    It is not a matter of opinion; I challenged your definition, asking you to explain, and you refused. I did not express my own opinion so much as ask you to explain yours. A forcible transfer of wealth must be defined. You cannot have an opinion about what a term means. If you cannot do so, then I will win by default because I am using a dictionary definition.
    I did not claim that he was not a victim of some form. What I did claim was that there is no such thing as a victimless act by that definition. If I had an idea of what my life was going to be, and your existence changed it, I would be victimized by you. Give an example of a victimless situation where one person got offended by another to counter this position.

    If you are holding that there are no such things as victimless actions, then your argument becomes completely invalid, as every single action would have a law against it if this level of victimization mattered on a legal level.

    I hold that if the loss is perceived and not tangible, then you are not a victim. If whether or not you are a victim depends on how you feel about an issue, then you are not one. You cannot use subjective value for this kind of law. Specifically in this instance, you would bring someone tangible loss because you felt that you had lost, while you kept all of your things own things that you had before the insult. I was under the impression that you were going to give me something for my birthday, and you did not give it to me. I did not get the profit that I deserved for existing. You owe me.

    It is all the same thing.
    Your belief is irrelevant. Prove it, or I will believe nothing regarding such a belief. An artist cannot both remain popular and be treated badly by his fans. It does not work that way. If she really liked him, she would go a concert or buy his other CDs herself, if not that one. The question is, how would she come to like him if you did not give her the CD? Do you really think that she would have bought it otherwise? CDs are somewhat expensive, and you have to waste a lot of money and time to get one. You need a car, gas, and a store that has the CD. It had better be worth it, especially when the CD itself costs more than ten dollars. And we have been over this multiple times, but the money that a band gets from record sales is extremely low, to the point of being famously so. Record companies rape artists. They are the businessmen, and the artists get raped by them. They suck their blood. It is a well accepted fact and it makes many if not most would-be artists very cynical about the industry. You show me a percentage that comes even close to making as much as a single tour for the band, and then we can talk.
    Art should never be a career, that ruins the art, but I digress. If you sell your tickets for ten dollars each at a concert, a single concert, mind, and one thousand people show up, then you made ten thousand dollars in a day. Even more, the merchandise sold at concerts sometimes doubles the profits made from the tickets by themselves. And that is an extremely cheap concert from what I have seen. Twenty to forty dollars is more likely, and it goes up from there. Here is a general idea from a certain site.

    "The percentage that you receive for each album sold is a negotiating point, but typically it can fall anywhere between 10% and 20%. Most new artists get a royalty percentage at the low end of the range, and 10% is common. A royalty deal seems simple enough. If a CD sells for $15 and the royalty percentage is 10%, the band should get $1.50 for the sale of each CD. If your first album sells a million copies, your band should get $1,500,000." (Source dubious)

    If you look at the overall record sales for just about any artist, the chances of them selling one thousand albums in one day is unlikely, and even if they did, they would not get even close to ten thousand dollars for it. They would get one thousand in its place. And this is being optimistic. I have heard of record deals going lower than ten percent and the artist just taking it because they don't see any better options. That is not a happy place to be for an artist, so they need those concerts, and badly.
    I see no fault, that is where we have a problem. An artist charging a lot of money and me pirating it, I see no fault in any of that. I do see a fault when someone is put a cell over it. I do not care who is put in a cell over it, the artist or the pirate, because neither of them has caused a tangible loss on the part of the other. If either of them gets put in jail or gets fined, then one of them incurs a loss without having incurred a loss on someone else. Violence is not okay with me, and I will take the artist starving over the artist harming someone else. Sorry.

    You do realize that legality has nothing to do with the artist profiting, right? It would probably be illegal for me to trade with an artist directly because of some tax or another. And I thought you said that you were not going to discuss the law in relation to pirating anymore. Sigh...

    You are honestly wrong. Well, I do not know about him personally, but if someone uploaded his music and got arrested for it, he would be put in debt for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars per song the last I checked. That is ruining someone's life and putting them in debt for the rest of it. They would also be likely to serve a prison sentence. It does not matter how much you charge for your album if it is not free to the public, because that law about the amount of money you have to pay is solid no matter how may downloads are made or how much your CD costs.

    There is no need to pirate as there is no need for the artist to make music, but what there really is no need for is the violence that is caused by his 'right' to every copy of it.
    You did not offend me. I was just giving an example. Any blow to my pride, such as an insult, makes me a victim by your definition, so you believe that there is no such thing as a victimless action. That was the point I was making.
     
  10. Lauriam I hope I didn't keep you waiting...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Gender:
    Nonbinary she/he/it?
    1,348
    738
    Well, I think I’ll take your advice and leave the debate. Lol, arguing makes me anxious, and for what? We all end up leaving with our own opinions and feelings of frustration with each other. I prefer to keep to the spam-zone and Role-Play arena. XD

    Pretty much, I read your post and have come to the conclusion that you and I both have our opinions, my statements will not change your mind, your statements will not change mine. The root of the matter is this: You see no fault in pirating; I do. And that’s alright with me. We are each entitled to our opinions, and I’m not going to argue that mine is better than yours.

    I’d like to thank you for challenging my veiws and making me think. As for your clarification of a previous statement, I do understand what you’re saying now, thanx for the clarification.

    Also, I’m relieved that I didn’t really offend you. Like I said, I hate being offensive. Lol, I guess, all in all, I’m saying I give up.
     
  11. EvilMan_89 Code Master

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    203
    hmmm, this is most likely where a difference of opinion will occur, but anyways that situation doesn't really fall under not being able to afford it in my opinion. the reason i believe that is since it appears that your parents are the ones who are expected to buy the games, i would think it's more of a question on whether your parents can afford it rather than you personally; and it seems like a video game isn't financially out of reach for them. well, i'm done, if you disagree with this opinion of mine, i understand.
     
  12. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    I fail to see the relevance here. Slaughtermatic exists as an individual. The source of his income is irrelevant. If he does not have the money and still comes to own the games personally, then you need to address that argument. You have dodged it by moving responsibility onto his employers.
     
  13. Princess Celestia Supreme Co-Ruler of Equestria

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    166
    Ah... We meet again... this time in a moral battle:

    I shall defuse the argument of the people who justify piracy. To start, I agree with mixt, piracy is a crime, it is illegal, and it does hurt people.

    According to the arguments presented so far by people who are pro piracy:

    1. No one is hurt by piracy. There is no loss.

    2. Piracy, according to a study, is good for business.

    3. There is no violation of any agreement.

    4. Due to the the first three, there is no moral violation.

    5. Games are not worth buying in the traditional sense, so I pirate.

    Let me defuse this one at a time. Commencing orbital bombardment...

    1. People do get hurt. Hours of work, and immense budgets. Certain blockbuster games have budgets over 200 Million dollars. That is a MAJOR loss to start off with. Anyone who makes an immense investment in a project of something "intangeble intellectual property" has every right to ensure that such assets are protected to the best ability possible.

    2. This was the easiest to defuse. The article itself has its own fatal flaw. "analytical modeling". Analytical modeling is a math formula done in place of actual research. But no where in the article does it mention real world data. Yes... I do believe science is a powerful tool... but it can be defiled and misused. I do believe testing to do with morality and human tendancies should not be done with real people with all the intangibles, not some formula punched into a computer.

    3. "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000." - The FBI. 'Nuff said. They enforce it laxly, but "just because I know I won't get caught" is never a valid excuse for a crime.

    4. I defused all three. There is a moral violation. Own up to the fact that your an intellectual property pirate and admit your not the good guy. Do not influence those who actually have a code of morals who dissagree with you. They are right.

    5. Budgets in the millions are the reason they charge $50 a game nowadays. If you can make a better game, with a smaller budget, without stealing someones intellectual property, do it. You'll be a millionaire.

    /discussion
     
  14. Always Dance Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    220
    Fantastic, we have an infallible person in our midst, everyone!
    First of all, all this does is prove that companies spend money to make games. Delightful. It doesn't prove or imply any kind of loss caused by piracy.

    Second, intellectual property is a fallacy in and of itself, and I don't believe it can be used to fairly justify or protect anything. Why do I think that? Look at Samsung and Apple, that's why.
    That's your problem, and nothing you said "Defuses" the argument. This is only ignoring a scientific study for no good reason.
    Yes, piracy is illegal. Wonderful. If you listened to any of our pro-piracy arguments, you'd know that we don't really care, and that we have good reason not to.
    You did no such thing.
    Incorrect, as your definition of a moral violation seems to imply breakage of the law. The law has nothing to do with morality and if you'd read any of my arguments you'd know that I don't see breakage of the law as immoral.
    I will not, because intellectual property is a logical fallacy and I don't believe there to be any "Good guy" or "Bad guy" in piracy.
    Nice Attacking The Person Fallacy. I have a code of morals and it has nothing to do with the law. This is the most arrogant post I have ever seen on this website.
    Not being able to afford is a game is different than not thinking it's worth buying, but again you'd have already read that if you read any of my arguments.
    Thanks, oh infallible one.
     
  15. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    There are several misconceptions or misrepresentations in this line up. Your premise is based on the morality of the action of piracy. My argument does not try to confirm or deny the moral value of piracy by itself, but rather its moral value in comparison to committing violence because you do not like it. A moral wrong does not justify a law. I may not like a liar, but that does not mean I have a right to fine him for lying to me, no matter what the law says I can do.
    Incorrect. You have no right to future profits that are not agreed to be paid previously. If I do not order your product before it is made, then I have no obligation to buy it after the fact. If I do not buy it, you did not incur a loss. You handled your resources badly. If the act of investing puts you at a loss, then everyone who does not buy your product is in the wrong, and you can protect your investment by making everyone buy your product.

    After all, it is within that notion of the best ability possible.
    I do not make this assertion, and it has no bearing on the 'moral' implications of piracy. Furthermore, your argument fails to reject this one because it offers no contrary data. You are simply claiming a right to ignore the data given to you, which is not the same as disproving it.
    You used irrelevant evidence. The majority of pirates do not distribute the things that they obtain, and the claim that is made uses this loophole. There is nothing stating that those on the receiving end of a distributer are to be punished. Please explain this discrepancy or acknowledge the flaw in your argument.

    As Slaughtermatic said, this also has no bearing on the ethical argument regarding piracy. There is a difference between a person being okay with an action because there is no law against it (appeal to law) and justifying it ethically. One of them is concerned about ethics and one of them is not. You tell me which one is which.
    At the end of the day, no one will be assaulted because of my position, while they will be assaulted because of yours. Who has the moral high ground again?
    Very false premise. I have yet to meet anyone who claims that games are not worth buying, therefore they are fine with pirating. You show me one pirate who claims that position and I will be surprised not that someone said it and meant but at the sheer stupidity of the argument. If the games are not worth buying, and you want them anyway, then you will quickly find yourself wanting games that do not exist because people did not have the money to make them. This is so painfully obvious that it is considered an axiom as far as I know.

    Notice that I did not counter your argument (because I agree with it), but rather I have a problem with the fact that you used such a ridiculous idea to represent piracy. It is much easier to destroy an idea when you represent it badly, but you insult the intelligences of both yourself and the party you are representing by using a straw man. I seem to recall you calling me out for using a straw man in a very similar thread in the section above this. You did not expand on your claim, but if you are going to ridicule something about me then I find fault with doing the same.

    If you have to write out a representation instead of quoting people who hold the position, then you need to think very carefully about what you are saying lest you make a fool of yourself.
     
  16. Chevalier Crystal Princess

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    Trapped on an Island
    552
    Hmm...people, please calm down. Discussion does not need to be accompanied by attacks to the person with the differing view. If you feel that you cannot contain yourself, then just step down and take some time before replying.

    Moreover, respect all knowledge, if you feel that you are smart enough to cite terms and make paragraphs, then you should also be smart enough to be understood with lesser words and more reason. This discussion section is for -all- KHV and not everyone has the same degree of knowledge. We expect everyone to respect that fact.

    Insult none, enlighten all. Respect each other.

    If I'm understanding this correctly, I'll ask. If they handled their resources badly, wouldn't it just be better not to sell things like video games in the first place? I mean, why waste resources on something as expensive as making a video game. If in the end, you wouldn't even be able to regain money from utilizing your resources?

    Why mass-produce anything that isn't ordered beforehand? Somewhat unrelated, but there is no Netflix in my country because the level of piracy is too high. So that makes me wonder if there's really -nothing- wrong with piracy.
     
  17. ♥♦♣♠Luxord♥♦♣♠ Chaser

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    1,773

    Because mass producing a video won't make you lose any money. Well the video game itself. Once it is done then it is done.
     
  18. Chevalier Crystal Princess

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    Trapped on an Island
    552
    You need to pay the team involved. There's the money you invest beforehand to make the whole thing and to run with all costs. So when I mentioned "losing" money, it's because a product will not generate enough for you to keep producing.

    Or more conservatively, investing or spending on. If your production costs are high and you need the income to break-even, and that is not met, then you are losing money.

    Like...umm. If Kingdom hearts I hadn't sold enough copies, they wouldn't have considered continuing it for being a risky venture (on normal cases).
     
  19. Makaze Some kind of mercenary

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    The Matinée
    1,207
    People's lives get ruined over art, people pay to keep the works that they like coming, or art dies out because the artists cannot pay for it. Have your choice. I am eliminating the first option, as it bothers me the most.

    If piracy laws did not exist, then people would learn all too quickly that it is does not work if everyone is doing it. All of the artists will begin starving, and the market will either adjust itself to accommodate the artists or the artists will die. If you believe that the latter is more likely, please present a case for it being so.
    If I may comment... There are people who release things not just for profit. They do not get much publicity, but I would not disregard artists who make art for the sake of being artistic. And those artists end up getting a sizable chunk of money anyway from donations or sentimental fans who want signed versions and things like that. If I cannot have art without devastating people over a right to copy it, then I should not have it, but I will not believe in such a dichotomy until the improbability of the alternatives is argued before me.
     
  20. Chevalier Crystal Princess

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    Trapped on an Island
    552
    I...don't think I'm following this correctly.

    Here you'd be doing something similar to the Hamburger guy, right? Giving people the choice to pay or not with no repercussions whatsoever, to be specific. I would be inclined to think this would work, but what if the number of people that pay is borderline enough to keep things the way they are?

    If anything big companies need a specific sum of money to function and keep producing at a certain quality, so I'm not sure how effective your suggested method would be on something as large as say, Square Enix or any other big video game company. We could be optimistic and take the example of the Hamburger stand, it worked for him.

    Well an artist needs tools, and the instruments of the trade can be costly. On smaller things, there's the possibility of using your own money and still not having to demand any large sum of money. But when we're talking about something like the newest game on the most recent console...well, we're talking millions of dollars, not just thousands.

    And while I can see a small indie developer taking a more artistic approach with smaller and less costly tools and thus not having to charge for their creations, or at least not as much, a big company normally does have development costs which can go pretty high.

    Let's not forget that the artist needs a place to be and live, so we pay to have them do that and devote all their time into the products we hope they'll deliver.