Burning a Game

Let me be more clear.

I will take the death of the industry over ruining peoples' lives because you want exclusive rights to an idea. People will either pay because they want good games to exist, or they will not pay and the industry will die. Both of these are better than intellectual property being introduced into law. Read the rest of the thread to get a clearer idea of what I mean.

In other words, intellectual property is wrong in itself, and that is what I disagree with. I am not for piracy so much as I am against intellectual property.

Very similar. I am not overly concerned with how much they profit, but you can bet that ostracism would play a large role in something like this. I personally would really like to pay Square Enix for their games if I have the money for it. If I see someone being obnoxious about not having to pay, then I will look down on them and openly refuse to do business with them. Most people will shape up because of this practice alone.

You forget that most people are not pirates, and I do not think this will change if the law changes. Most people will go to a store and buy a game without thinking about piracy whether it is illegal or not. Most people will not think of stealing the disc from the store, or not paying for it in any way, if they have the money. The only people that I know of who think about piracy are those who cannot afford to go out and buy everything that they want to have, and so resort to more complicated means of getting the art that they want. If anything, the drop in DRM and anti-piracy legislature should drop the rate of piracy, as increases in them have been met with directly proportional increases in piracy.

Like I have said before, the artist is at the mercy of the public, but it does not pay to be cynical. Out of all of the people arguing about piracy, the majority of them are against it, even those who argue against intellectual property. Leeching is not looked upon kindly. If so many people look down on piracy, how would that change if the laws were repealed? Logic is logic regardless of what the law says, and people will learn as I said above.

Remember what I consider the real wrong here, and that is intellectual property law. Otherwise, explain to me why you think that people will not pay if there are no laws against it.

It is hard to forget this when I have been saying it the entire time. We pay willingly, is my point. And that should always be the case. If we do not want to pay, and we do not steal a physical copy of his work, then we should not have to pay. I will bring up my argument about lying again. I find lying and swindling to be disreputable, but I do not believe that I or anyone has a right to harm someone for doing it unless the forcibly transferred wealth from someone else. I am not okay with lying, but violence is an even bigger wrong and I will not condone it on account of my own personal preference or love for an art form.

 

Author is slightly drunk

They don't get hurt if the pirates are people who wouldn't buy the game regardless. For what it's worth, the pirates may be impressed by its quality and just may buy upcoming products of that company. If piracy would actually lead to a (steep) decrease in sales, then people would "get hurt" and your argument would have made sense, but like Slaughtermatic tries to convey, nothing seems to point out that it does.

And they won't get their hours of work back, regardless of whether someone actually buys the damn thing or not.

"This argument doesn't quite suit me, so I'll just say it's biased. Am I smart yet?"
The very least you could do to back up your confidence is to find a study with real people that proves the exact opposite. Either you didn't look for one (in which case your arrogance is inappropriate) or you didn't find any (in which case your arrogance is also inappropriate).

Nobody ever said that they used that as an excuse, as far as I've read. Thanks for lockpicking a door that was already open though.

And even though you're right, if the aforementioned points stand (which they do, since as far as I'm concerned, you don't have an argument), then it doesn't matter. If someone hacked my bank account to deposit money, then believe it ot not, I wouldn't quite sue 'em.

Keep telling yourself that.

Meh, I buy and pirate music, and I go to concerts (read: pay for them). They make money off me, more so than off most of my peers (although I realize that's not an argument on itself). Somehow I don't feel like a villain. In fact I chuckle at the thought of it.

We debate precisely because we believe we are knowledgeable and the others ignorant. We respect knowledge but not the lack thereof.

 

First of all, we need to get rid of this silly color... *delete key* THERE!

Thanks. I must correct you tho. I am not truly infallible. I do my best to achieve such a status, and try to live by the highest moral standards, so your misconception is justfied. Although, admitedly my flaws are arrogance and love of competition, and in the realm of fiction, even violent competition.

Indeed, and they invest millions of dollars into our economic system with the clear basic understanding that thier creativity can in turn yield cash rewards. If such laws did not exist, I doubt any for profit entities, (fancy word for corporation) would ever make games.

*Looks at Samsung and Apple*
Ok... am I trying to find something specific? All I really see is a couple of major electronic corperations.

I expected such a counter arguement. I was going to cite real world examples once someone countered this. People I know from past experiences who know pirating is wrong, willingly admit so, but justify thier massive collection of roms and burned CD's with "Well, why pay for something I can get for free" attitude. But Chevalier pointed out that a major electronic corporations strategy failed in one country due to pirating reasons. In other words, we draw what opinions from what evidence we choose to see. I saw your evidence, and dismissed it with firsthand experience I seen in the past.

You overlooked the fact that its an agreement. It is either directly written, paraphrased, and mentioned on all forms of media, either in the data itself, or on the packaging. Including, videogames, music and commercially distributed software within the United States. I am sure other regions refference other law enforcement agencies. In other words, its a contractual obligation, that if you replicate thier software without thier permission, you are simply ignoring the terms you agreed to by consuming that said product, and they have the legal right to prosecute you. I doubt even the most liberal mind would consider a breach of a contract both parties agreed to ethical.

I did. You just expected a more detailed explaination. You got it.

I implied breach of contract, breakage of the law, and basically ripping off someone who put massive investment to bring you a product you would never be able to make without thier initial investment. In other words, you should be thanking them for thier creativity by honoring the terms you initially agreed to. You admit buying software in the past legally.

Nice people play by the rules setforth. How is it fair that someone pays $50, the other pays a few cents? Your sense of justice is slightly skewed if you truly believe that someone follows through on a contract, and you ignore the said contract, and you both get the same product, simply because you did not play by the rules?

The follow through on what you agree upon if your mentioned code of morals is so noble. NPD runs in my family, I have an excuse...

Here is where your thinking needs to be adjusted once again. Video games are luxury items. Music is a luxury item. Software is a luxury item. It is not a "right" to own such things. Truthfully, I believe anyone who cannot afford such items, should learn to go without such items. Perhaps our society has left you a tad bit spoiled by our modern highly luxurious society if you think such items are a necessity. Learn to live without. In past generations, and even in modern generations of less fortunate societies, many lack electricity, let alone electronic gadgets built to entertain us.

Please do not call me that anymore.

It seems like you are trying to justify it. Is stealing somehow morally sanctioned in your idealic society? If such hurtful non-violent practices such as stealing, fraud, elder financial abuse, statiatory rape, breach of contract, and similar crimes do not justify laws, then I shudder at your concept of utopia.

Are you denying a company the right to secure a large investment the best way they know how, including legislature? Thier investment is made under the assumption that it will be purchased ethically, legally, and copy ever to be played will in turn net a profit for them. As for the latter half of your arguement, thats what the marketing division is for. To ensure that every copy made, is sold eventually. Companies may take losses, that is undeniable, but what your doing is different than making them risk a loss. You seem to suggest no ethical consequence denying them the right to make any return on thier investment.

Including, but not limited to, legislature.

I mentioned above to Slaughtermatic, Chevs post is evidence to the contrary, as are some of my first hand experiences. Now, if you have more evidence to the contrary, please inform me. But I consider a simulation involving some hardcore number crunching much less scientific than an entire corperation not being able to establish a successful business model due to the pirating problem being so bad.

Its encoded into the disk itself more often than not. Especially in games and movies. Besides, benefiting from theft is also illegal, and carries a punishment in itself. Also, in addition to being a contract, its a law. We discussed laws earlier.

We discussed the reasons laws exist, and why this law itself exist. I can not make it any more clear.

I dissagree. If piracy continues, it will have major micro and macro economic consequences. People will lose income, not only in the electronic/music industry, but in the logistical, and commercial fields as well. If enough income is lost, jobs will in turn be lost. Given the already strained economic climate, loss of jobs throughout multiple industries, or worse a major industry, such as gaming, completly collapsing, would lead to a increase in poverty. Increase in poverty increases crime, including violent crime.
So, either way could result in violence, my arguement promotes honesty and integrity. I do. Especially if your way actually leads to the spread of the attitude, "I can ignore the laws if its to my benefit." Lets face it, thats the main reason many people pirate, because it benefits the pirate. Not because they dissagree with the right to intelectual property.

Look above you... Slaughtermatic.

Maybe I made an assumption, but I got from that was that people pay what they think a product is worth. So, if they think its worth nothing, they will not pay for it. Perhaps a large leap.

I use what tactics I have been exposed to."Strawman" tactics I did not see before, and I was uncomfortable with them being used upon me. I see no arguement being made here, only a complaint as to my debating style.

Then my original post would have been as long as this one. Due to time constraints, I could not do so. I could do this more often, but my replies will be slower. It depends on how I feel.

This post seems to promote the banning and enforcement of piracy. If there is no income for art, large capital cannot be raised to make games of the quality we have today. If this was the 8 bit era, a little innovation and a small budget could make great quality games, Activision proved this when they seperated from Atari. But this is not. Video game budgets are commonly in the millions, a very difficult capital ammount for the Indygaming industry. Some indygames are of good quality. But truthfully, if such an economic structure were turned on its head, we would never see major blockbusters, or sequals (love 'em or hate 'em) to such blockbusters. There would never be another Final Fantasy epic, nor another Call of Duty Modern Warfare award winner. Don't get me wrong, there would be good games, I've seen some impressive deep indygames. But games of "blockbuster quality" would become extreamly rare. Hardly keeping art alive. But rather, restricting it greatly.

You are advocating this? I doubt anyone woud truly starve, but a majority, a VAST MAJORITY, of highly skilled programmers would leave the industry and pursue other careers. The market will adjust, at the expense of gaming as a whole. Thus, art itself would suffer. Think of all the great innovators who did great things for profit. Is it unethical to profit for having great skill? If so, I wonder how music, art, and theater would have evolved. I do not think it would be great. Think of all the Davinci's, The Clash, and other great artist the world would miss out on.

And those people are noble, trusting, and very much in the minority. The Clash was a punk band btw... They advocated anarchy a lot. And decided to go into music solely to make money.

You'd put people out of work, and limit the art in the world just because you do not believe people who come up with innovation have the right to profit off it?

I do not see the logic in that. If innovation and creativity does not give a business a competitive edge, why do business at all?

How would you know? The contract was between them and Square. And what if the said person had a commodity that was essential to your very survival? Say, they sold food, and there was a famine. Would you starve, or comprimise your principles and resort to violence against them? Thinking in theoreticals is fun isn't it?

Because it is as of yet "not socially normal". Its basically understood, that you "get what you pay for". People feel guilty if they do not pay for something. Others however, dispite social norms, do so without any form of guilt. I hereby cite the classic "take one" scenario, where a child takes a fist full of candy. Some people do not outgrow it. I've seen it first hand. I've seen lots of things in customer service industry. Not all people are not as noble as you would like to think they are. Some are, some are not.
Whats more, I will pick on those who have a very "complient" moral opinion, who depend on others to tell them whats right and wrong. Such ones would satisfy thier own selfishness, and justify it with silly reasons such as "I don't make that much money" and the like if they had the impression there was no moral wrong to it.

Artist are at the mercy of public opinion, however, I highlight once again that games (and for the most part, electronics) are luxury items. It will not hurt you to go without them. Do not "leech" off the producers who invested millions of dollars bringing you a finished product, with the understanding that its illegal to take his property without compensating them for thier work...

Enforcing a legal contract is somehow more wrong than breaching it to you.
Some pay out of "defiance to the system" such as the role you seem to be stancing, others simply because they want to have the luxury, without paying for it. I do not have statistics on which is which outside of my first hand experience (people I talk to). And truthfully, I never met someone of the "defiance" category IRL. Ironically... I keep company with an anarchist, who is very open about "I just don't want to pay for it, and I will never get caught." Wait... you thought you were the first anarchist I met, didn't you?

People pay out of compulsion for what is "right". People like me pay. Others justify not paying for it for themselves. And truthfully, the rule itself is laxly enforced.
Think of the current loose enforcemet of the law as a "morality beta test". Where people live without fear of punishment. The fact that piracy exist, and has gotten to the point where corperations are vehemently trying to enforce such rules, occasionally even them themselves resorting to unethical means (Microsoft, WarnerBros,) and even silly (Sony) means to do so. Keep in mind, I never, EVER heard anyone say they will not pirate out of fear of punishment. In fact, as late as September 10, 2010, ten online Pirates being arrested is still newsworthy, meaning, hardly normal. Think of the current situation as proof of a failed morality beta test.

Noted.

I mentioned a number of reasons it does hurt people earlier within this post. The most notable are the developers, designers, and even misc. grunts who work for the gaming company. But I will also use this platform to note some others, the truckdriver who delivers it, the truckers 8 year old daughter, nice customer service representative who works at GameStop and winks at you when you walk in the door trying to put herself through college, her boss who is trying to save up to run his own business, the governement (love them or hate them, they lose tax revenue on it), the policeman who arrives when you call him to let him know you heard shots fired next door, the paramedic who arrives when your neighbor is screaming in agony, just to name a few. Granted, all indirect, and in very small scale. But yeah, you saving yourself a little bit of cash, had all those consequences, all because you did not follow the rules I do because you dissagree with them.

No, they willl not. But they are doing thier best to protect such an investment. Even if that means legislature.

I just did. I just did not want to spend this much time on it originally. But its fine, I got good music playing. And... my my... a personal attack? But why? I just stated my opinion.

Illegal activity is illegal. And for the aformentioned reasons, unethical and imoral in this case.
If such a hack happened, and you had a basic understanding of accounting, you would know the money came from somewhere. In macroeconimcs of the privatesector, money (and to a larger extent wealth) works the same way the laws of phyics work energy. It is never gained or lost, it mearly changes hands. So no, do not sue them. But your account will be debited, as soon as those crafty accountants (you do realize figuring out where money came from and went is a career) and you will be responsible if you withdraw it. Unless of course, the said hacker was depositing out of his own generosity, in which case, why hack? He could just deposit it.

But its more fun to tell you.

I guess you arn't a villain. *Upgrades you to anti-hero* Now some people will cheer for you. But you still steal on a small scale.

No... I debate because I believe my oponents has knowledge, but has somehow been mislead. At least in this case. I have acknowledge all points sent against me, and respectfully refute it.


One more things, since I apparently do not cite material, here we go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/internet-piracy-crackdown_n_708933.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinchi

 

Not helping them isn't the same as hurting them. They'd make no money off me, but that would be no different from someone who doesn't care for video games at all. Not if you only pirate what you can't/wouldn't buy.
(Disclaimer: I don't actually pirate games. Not because of a moral standard; it's just that I hardly get to finishing the games I already own).

Protect them with what? Copyright laws? Don't make me laugh.

What kind? I might download their CD.

Spoiler

Just kidding.

Fixed. And if calling you out on your questionable ways of argumentation is considered a personal attack, then what has this butthurt world come to?

Reasons which still aren't reasons as far as I'm concerned. You claim to refute our arguments while you do nothing of the sort. It's cute when you try though.

Yes, I realize the example was horrible. The gist of it was that if I were the "victim" of an illegal activity, yet would only benefit from the outcome, I wouldn't mind a bit. Can't see how anyone would.

Even if piracy would be an unethical crime, it's still vastly different from theft. Theft removes the original from public access while piracy makes a copy of it.
I once bought the only copy of Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne from a game store. It was a rare find in my country, and I'm still proud of owning and playing it. If someone were to have stolen it before I got it, I would have never gotten the chance to play it, and may not have heard of the Shin Megami Tensei series altogether. But if someone were to have seen it lying there and went home to download it, the game would still be there for me or anyone to buy (in fact I'd have benefited from him/her pirating it). The store/game company/etc. could also still make money from it.
Thus, theft affects more people than piracy and in costlier ways, so I will not have you refer to it as such.

 

Now you've proven that companies spend money to make games and can make that money back by selling them. You still haven't proven or implied any loss caused by piracy. You're literally ignoring your own point.

They're both suing each other because both of them believed the other violated their intellectual property. When in reality neither of them created the smartphone, or touchscreens, or tablets, yet they are allowed to claim those things as intellectual property.

No, I don't choose what evidence is real and what isn't, it seems you do. Evidence is by definition objective, "dismissing" any of it discredits you so much I don't even see the point of continuing this debate.
Firsthand experiences do not dispel scientific studies. If they did, we wouldn't have scientific studies.

An agreement taken by paying customers not to distribute copies of what they brought. I engage in no such contract when I pirate a game, and even if I did I would break no such contract because I do not distribute games I pirate.

No, I got more detailed ignorance, arrogance, and disregard for objective facts.

Which sets a contract with that particular piece of software. I am breaching no contracts. I don't care that I'm breaking the law, and you need to look up the definition of "Rip Off"

Once again, I've not agreed to any "Rules". I haven't accepted any such contract.

Not relevant to the argument.

First of all, I am aware that video games are a luxury item, and I never said it was a "right" to own them. But if you cannot afford a luxury item, and a way exists for you to enjoy said item without any loss to the company who made it, why wouldn't you take advantage of that?
Second, your logic is severely flawed. Is it wrong for a friend to buy a video game for me, because since I can't afford it I should learn to live without it?

And lastly, spell-check. Use it.

 

i was actually interested in the point about these studies that piracy supposedly helps businesses. it interested me because it seemed very counter-intuitive so i tried researching it. i came up with a few of these studies. however, all of these articles simply state that it does help businesses/increase sales but they don't really offer any explanation or any shred of evidence for that matter. so i was left with a bunch of news articles that pretty much state "piracy is not as bad as you may think. studies show that it indirectly helps businesses". but then i'm left wondering "but how? and is there anything to prove this?"
so, does anybody have a link to a good study? i'd really like to read more on this.

 

I will say this again, but this will be the last time as a general reminder.

The debates to be conducted will be done without having to insult others or throw little remarks, and much less ad hominem. If you have a problem with how a person presented something, acting like an arrogant person will not make it better.

If you cannot control your remarks, then kindly leave the discussion. Thank you for your time, carry on.

 

Companies make video games. They can make money back by selling them. They sell them to a certain pool of customers. If those customers are able to get the product produced by the companies for free, when they would otherwise pay the companies for them, they have lost the money that those customers would have paid. Certainly, not everyone who pirates the game would otherwise buy it. Even so, there are undoubtedly profits lost due to piracy. This is bad, because if taken to extremes, it means that the companies may be deprived of enough profit to make producing a new game to be worthwhile.

The actual content of the lawsuit is a bit further than that though. They're suing over specific types of tablets. After all, they're not suing HTC or Blackberry, yet they also produce touchscreen phones and the like. You've presented an argument in which you've oversimplified and misconstrued the Samsung/Apple case, and then used it as an example of why intellectual property is flawed. Even if your argument weren't based on an oversimplification, it would still not prove the uselessness or inherent flaw in all IP cases. It would only prove it for one. Apple vs. Samsung is not representative of all IP cases.

One must consider whether the companies and developers themselves deserve to have their wishes respected. I'd argue that taking their work and their effort without permission is immoral by most standards of society. Indeed, this is the entire reason for IP law. Having Apple and Samsung subvert the law or twist it (which they may not even be doing) is not a strong enough basis to dismiss the initial reason for IP law.

Ethically, we come back to a simple principle of "Do unto others as you would have done unto you". Personally, I would not be satisfied with others taking something I created and using it in a way I disapprove of.

So, hypothetically, what would you say to a contract saying, "By owning this product you are agreeing not to use it without lawfully paying for it"? Would that sort of contract at the start of a game make you willing to pay for it?

I present the argument that the law is a contract between a person and the rest of society. By existing in society, you are inherently bound by such a contract. Indeed, the law is what all contracts are based around. By denying the law, you're also denying culpability for breaching any contracts. So if the law isn't sacred to you, and the distributor's wishes do not come into account, where does the morality emerge?

Don't get me wrong; I am a pirate. I pirate as much as I can. I don't, however, claim that doing so is a moral action. I am merely breaking the law because I can. I willingly use others' products without paying for them. In some cases, if it were not available via piracy, I would buy the product. In other cases, I wouldn't. By any normal standards of morality, this would make me immoral. I accept that label. (I justify my piracy and crimes in a different way. But that's not relevant at present.)

I can accept that piracy is a part of the system, and is a product of companies distributing their product at unreasonable or otherwise high prices. It may be a matter of piracy simply being easier than buying it. Whatever the argument, I reject the idea that piracy is morally correct, assuming we are going by ideals of morality common in society, even if it does ultimately benefit society, or cause a change in the system. Morality is, in part, based on intent. The intent of the piracy for me, and, I'd wager, the majority of people, is not some noble crusade to lower game prices. People pirate because it's free stuff. In most of the cases, anything other than that simple desire is a post-hoc justification.

In the case of not being able to afford it, or otherwise buy it, then it is a victimless crime, as the companies would not have the money either way. So it's a simple +1 to you, with no repercussions to them. The thing is, having a product available for free means that not only those too poor to afford it, but even those able to afford it, do not pay the companies. This is where the loss comes into play, and when innocent people start losing jobs.

 

I would think it impossible to be able to analyze whether or not companies are gaining a net benefit as a result of piracy. A good study has reliable numbers. Having any numbers at all on how many people are pirating a product, how many of those pirated copies lead to purchases, and how many of those pirates would have purchased it otherwise, would all be mostly guess work.

I laughed at the "Don't get me wrong," line, you were coming off as a saint. To pirate, or to not pirate, a balancing act between one's conscience and convenience.

I've realized that that last sentence can apply anywhere: To vegan, or not to vegan, a balancing act between one's conscience and convenience.

 

that's actually why it intrigued me enough to go research it.
but yea, i didn't really come across studies with any evidence pointing to that direction even though it states in the title that it somehow helps. the closest thing i found was that one study researched products and found a correlation between piracy rates and sales. however, i don't really buy that because correlation doesn't equal cause, it can easily be switched the other way around to say that sales increases piracy rates. and the only reason i think there was a correlation there was just the popularity of the software or the quality just makes more people willing to go get it, so of course there would be more sales AND piracy if the software is that popular.

 

I am going to ignore the rest of your argument because it is redundant and we discussed it in MSN, but this seriously bothers me. Playing devil's advocate, are we?

The concept of a social contract seriously bothers me because I favor the individual over any number of others united against them. If that individual cannot do something to those in the majority by his lonesome, then those in the majority cannot do that thing to the individual either individually or collectively, ethically. The needs of the many do not exist, needs do not exist. You go and starve; if I say you cannot eat me, you cannot.

I am bound by nothing but my own conscience. As are you. As is everyone else in the majority. Society exists only as a concept. In reality there are only individuals. Work out how those individuals should treat each other and ignore the concept that does not exist otherwise. You hold that I am bound because the law gets enforced, nothing more.

You are very wrong about the law being the basis for any contract, as it is at best an imaginary contract that does not require the explicit consent of one of the parties involved. The law is based on contracts that already exist between people. I trade with someone. They trade with me or someone else. The law exists to protect these contracts and settle disputes when trades are made forcibly. It has no purpose other than to protect an individual's ability to trade. It is not a contract itself, but a method to ensure that existing contracts are respected by both parties. If you can explain why you hold this position, I would appreciate it.

Perhaps I may be of some service.

Piracy does help a product gain popularity that it did not have before it was uploaded. The ease of access makes me personally more likely to hear music and then to buy it (because I know about it) as a result. If sales or even the number of people who attend concerts go up in correlation with a rise to piracy of the music, then I believe it is safe to say that piracy gives an artist publicity and so increases sales. I know that it has for me and nearly all of my friends. We like to go to concerts and buy things from artists that we like, but we would not have heard of them if we did not have piracy. We are the kind of people who have to really love something before we will throw money away at it.

My knowledge of music and other art forms would be woefully lacking if I could not go and download it whenever I felt like it. Piracy is the reason why I am so cultured as I am. I think of piracy much like I think about a library, only the library has infinite copies of the artwork and so has no return policy. I love libraries and do not know where I would be without them. Piracy helps sales like libraries help sales (I consider this axiomatic); people get a taste for what they like and then they buy it if they have the money. Sentimentality, you know. I value the access to culture very highly and I consider it a necessity for any location to have a well-stocked library.

 

I agree. I have about 60 CDs in my collection. The vast majority of them are bands I wouldn't even have heard of, let alone liked, were it not for pirated material.
Even NOFX, one of my favourite bands, falls into that category. So far I bought 1 CD and attended two festivals they were headlining. They couldn't have made that money and wouldn't have gained me as a fan if I hadn't pirated their songs beforehand. Another example would be Crystal Castles. Not my primary genre, to say the least, but I like their music. The chances that I would have heard their songs or seen them live without piracy on my part are slim: their songs don't play on the radio stations I listen to, and they usually don't perform at the kind of festivals I attend.

Piracy is much like alcohol: healthy in the right amounts and when alternated with the alternative, and detrimental when used in excess.

I may as well leave then, and I suspect that replacing the tidbit of vitriol with even more political correctness will do the Debate Corner more harm than good. Some people don't see much in debates where you can't even make someone else's arrogance explode back in their faces, myself included.

Pride resolves itself. If you act high and mighty and get wiped the floor with in a hot debate, then you'll be muzzled by your own embarassment before long. Contrariwise, if you wipe said floor with others, then it's your damn good right to be arrogant.

Also, I strongly disagree with your theory that arrogance doesn't help in making others see your point. Believe it or not, I used to be an idealistic politically correct debater too (by which I mean that I threw tantrums if my opponent acted all cocky towards me). My arrogant opponents back then showed me just how ridiculous my points of view were back then, and I'm still grateful they did it in such a way. Their insights wouldn't sink in unless they were hammered in, and it'd be absolutely mulish to believe that I'm a stand-alone case in this.

The studies are solid enough, but finding causality is a difficult thing indeed without degenerating into conjecture and storytelling. It's a common woe for many kinds of study, not just the ones on piracy. An unfortunate example would be studies on phylogeny, which are often at risk of shots in the dark. Further investigation is mostly needed.
That being said, not knowing the mechanism is not a reason to reject or ignore data we already have.

 

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. I d/l roms of games which is effectively piracy. But I only do it if I cannot find the game anywhere in town, and I go look at all the Gamestop's and other used and old game stores in town nd in the surrounding area first. An example would be Digimon World DS. You can't find that anywhere nowadays and when a game isn't released on your continent, then you have no other way, other than piracy, to get and enjoy that game. In your case though, you can probably find another copy. I've have to buy multiple copies of games I've lost or scratched beyond repair. FFX, Metroid Prime 3, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, and others. You lost it so if you wanna play it again either find it or buy a new one. I only condone piracy when you can't get it by driving over to the game store.

 

It is not illegal if you own a copy, broken or not. You did not have to buy more copies according to the law.

 

are you sure that's actually true though? i thought it was one of those myths that warez sites like to spread like the one saying "its' legal if you delete within 24 hours"

 

If I'm not mistaken, it's revolves around the same idea of making back-ups of games. It is often frowned upon, but it is not illegal unless you are distributing the file. I mean, I downloaded a PS2 bios, even though I owned a PS2, because it's easier. If I've bought a game and it breaks, I don't hesitate to download a new copy of it.

 

Not sure if it's been said yet but there were pirated versions of Modern Warfare 3 online the day it came out, and honestly I believe the sales wouldn't have been as good without that. Like Slaughtermatic said, the people who pirate weren't going to buy the game in the first place. And at a certain point, companies stop making money on games. I download PS1 games all the time. Why? Because I love them. Is it hurting anyone? No. I highly doubt piracy hurts companies (most of the time) now for music and movies that is a whole other story, but i'm not getting into that. My bottom line is, piracy isn't bad, not good either, but it isn't bad.

 

Tell that to SOPA and PROTECT IP.

 

Two shitty bills that will most likely get vetoed by Obama.

 

hmm, i actually researched this. according to GameFaqs (i know might not be the most reliable source) downloading a copy of a game even if you own it isn't legal. trust it somewhat because they state that according to Copyright law and i get the impression they did their research. here is a link if anyone is interested:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/help/entry.html?cat=24

but my research also found that it is indeed legal in certain countries like Canada and Switzerland as long as it's not distributed or sold.

so my opinion on this: i personally do think that piracy does have some negative effect on potential profit gains from manufacturers. the reason i think it has a negative effect is because of people who wouldn't have bought it BECAUSE they can get it for free. however, i do think that both anti-pirates AND pirates like to exaggerate the effect or lack of effect on profits. piracy clearly isn't enough to destroy entertainment industries because they are still standing (and making tons of money), but at the same time, i wouldn't say the effect on profits are negligible either.