Jump to content

Sev Dreamweaver

Member
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. No one's getting defensive here but you. My arguments have remained mostly the same throughout the entire discussion, while you've backtracked all the way from "My arguments are the correct one, because they're the facts" to holing up in the fortress of "You just didn't understand me, because I have trouble communicating in English. Also, I was just being sarcastic!". Your earlier posts prove that your English might be rough but still decently fluent. Once again, your grasp of the language is obviously not the problem here. As for getting personal - Let's see, you start with snide jabs at me for "repetitive arguments", implying that arguments that I specifically brought to the table are irrelevant and "non - facts". Only after I challenge you to justify why you're making these statements do you backtrack again to claiming that you agreed all along that fair play is a fact to be considered. I call you out on your flip - flopping and you turn to making yet more snarky remarks to Rathlord about me: You are in a poor position to claim that you are the victim here, given your behavior throughout the discussion. (Also, you apparently have no problem showcasing snide, but quite conveniently claim that your "sarcasm" was merely misunderstood) No one actually started off by saying that. Finances and the whole tired argument of "Potential profits" were first brought up by people trying to justify piracy, and they have been the main ones wielding it since. Nice straw man to end the whole self - victimization farce, though!
  2. ...Still with this accusation that I didn't understand you? Claiming language problems is the easiest way to avoid admitting that you made gross errors in reasoning your stand. If the problem was really language, we'd be seeing poorly - worded reasoning, something along the lines of your last paragraph that I quoted as being somewhat incoherent, but that I still agreed to. Poorly worded, probably with spelling and grammar errors, but the intent and the reason being given would still be relatively clear. That is not the case for a large portion of your early statements. There was simply little to no attempt at reasoning, however poorly - worded. Language was not the problem. No. And the reason for rejecting your premise is quite simply this: You are not, and have never been "forced" into buying a game and living with a developer's terms (Money, Respect for their IP, Terms of Service, etc). If you feel a developer is offering unfair terms, overhyping his product, not giving you enough information via a demo, etc. you have the choice simply not to give your money to them for their product. If the developer feels that you are offering unfair terms, they still have little to no choice but to watch you take and pirate their game. Therein lies the difference. There's where the discrepancy of Freedom of Choice between the pirate and the developer comes in. That's a point that has been explained to you, multiple times. You complain a lot about "repetitive arguments", but the only reason they're being repeated is that you repeatedly ignore them in favour of chanting the same old lines about "Potential profits" and "Developer's terms don't meet my requirements", justifications that have already been thoroughly examined and shown to be weak with other posters. "How much things might change if they went the way we want". Someone still hasn't learned his lesson about making unverified claims about future scenarios. That explanation makes two major assumptions: 1) It assumes that the motivation for everyone is the same "You look for a reason to pirate because you don't want to spend money on the product". No, I could like the product enough to spend money on it, but I just don't do that because there's a no - cost alternative in piracy. 2) It assumes that the original argument is that "all" pirates would turn into legitimate customers. Of course not all pirates would magically turn into legitimate customers. The point being made is that those who do become legitimate customers would be giving to the developer more of what they deserved, what they were being deprived of before. Just because the new situation is not perfect does not mean it is not an improvement over the old. So once again, your hypothetical scenario - and the conclusion - remains founded on the basis of weak assumptions. Yes. Yes, you were: There's no misunderstanding here, and thankfully this time I scarcely need to explain why. If you were simply bad at English, that is no real impediment to constructive debate - Everyone else might have some trouble understanding what you were trying to say, but we would understand your reasons for it once we figured how to work through the language barrier. It's a different matter entirely when you're just being intellectually dishonest.
  3. Yes, your latest post comes across as significantly less arrogant now, but I will point out that it's because you've quietly backtracked on many things that you were strongly asserting, much earlier: You were saying, quite directly, that the feelings of developers are not considered facts. What you're saying now is this: ...That you agree with...What, exactly? You agree on principles of fair use but you think that developers are not allowed to think that they are treated unfairly? Or that you agree that developers can feel unfairly treated, but that this is not allowed to be considered one of the "facts" of the discussion for some reason? Come clear on what you're actually saying here, and make stand on what you mean by "I don't agree to how it's used in this argument": 1) Whether you think the developers feeling unfairly treated is considered one of the "facts" to be considered, and if not: 2) Why is the perception of unfair treatment not considered a fact Yes, you can ask only for opinions of the business aspect of piracy, but that is just one of the factors to be considered, not the be - all - end - all argument. If you acknowledge that developers are justified in feeling unfairly treated, then that's one of the facts to be considered when talking about piracy, unlike what you asserted earlier about that being "non - facts". Next up, you now claim that you were "just" innocently making a point that there are other possible outcomes to Crazyeyes' example: ....Except you didn't just present a potential alternative as such. You went all the way to claim that your hypothesis was the correct outcome, earlier: So yes, your stance is more reasonable now - But only because you've changed your stance midway. You were not just "spreading your views" on an alternate outcome. You were, in fact, making the claim that your hypothesis was the correct one, and Crazyeyes' was wrong. As for this point: Yes, I am aware that it is not a robbery. A robbery, by definition - Involves unlawful use of force. Piracy is closer to the definition of theft, which is what you're really arguing here. For the benefit of the discussion I'll include the textbook definition of theft, courtesy of Wikipedia and Merriam - Webster: So no, piracy is not robbery - It does not involve force. However, a very real case can be made for piracy being considered theft. Before anyone gets started on "But the owner isn't deprived of the original copy!", I will point out that piracy already unquestionably fulfills the first half of 1a, and the conditions for 1b, if we're going to get pedantic and argue about dictionary definitions. That's not including what has already been discussed to death about the deprivation of control and deprivation of a developer's freedom of choice regarding how to sell and market their product. Which fall under the definition of "Hurt feelings", to put it rather simplistically. So - Piracy is a crime. It is not a robbery, however there are extremely strong grounds for considering it theft morally. My entire argument on fair play was leading up to that, even if you didn't catch the point. Legally, it is already considered theft. You are just repeating the same old argument about costs and potential profit and using that to try to justify piracy as "not theft". No. There is no exception clause in the definition for something being "not theft" just because you think that the developer did not lose anything material. You: 1) Took something that belongs to another person, 2) Did it without consent - Indeed, often against the other person's wishes and (What my arguments were pointing towards): 3) You deprived the other person of several things in relation to the product - Most importantly being freedom of choice, because you coerced them into accepting a deal they did not want. What you're doing is taking just one subset of "Deprivation" - potential profits - and getting hung up over it. I fully admit that this point is debatable - But it's debatable on both sides of the fence - Your potential "profits" hinges on the blithe assumption that the developer has already broke even on the development costs. Someone else might consider the equally possible scenario where the developer is not able to recoup his costs, ends up having to downsize/close down the company - A "Potential loss". Neither argument is stronger than the other. (In fact, that it could either be potential profits or potential losses to the company was already discussed long ago) You are considering profits and losses on a limited, per - product basis. It is however also justifiable from a business perspective to look at profits and losses from an overall perspective - Whether the product has covered all the sunk costs involved in developing it. Operational costs are not the only valid argument to be had. Your "Potential" profits argument, in other words, is not the concluding argument for the business side of things that you seem to think it is. It is not a "fact". It is an opinion you have of what might be the outcome - Based on many underlying assumptions. You may be right. However, you could just as readily be wrong. You consistently fail to realize that many of your arguments hinge on future predictions that you are hard - pressed to justify as inherently superior to the other side's opinion. The point was to show that all the conditions for piracy to be considered an immoral act, akin or equal to theft / extortion are already fulfilled. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are already justified, whatever the outcome of the contentious subset of point 3 - The monetary side of things. Hence the number of statements that your arguments - Whatever the results - were already mostly irrelevant. So no, I did not "misunderstand" you and ended up repeating irrelevant arguments - You failed to understand how my point was meant to address the more readily proven part of number 3 (Emotional/mental losses) because you are constantly harping on the idea of "potential profits" and failing to follow the discussion as it has evolved. You miss the point. The hypothetical construct I was referring to is the scenario that you claimed was true based on your own underlying assumptions (Pirates who don't have the ability to pirate a game will simply not buy it, etc). This hypothesis: ...In which you made no mention of stocking costs, digital stock management and other business concerns. Your hypothesis only talked about probable behaviors on the part of the consumer. Which, I emphasize again, you quite vehemently asserted to be the true outcome of events. Next: Somewhat incoherent, but I think I get what you're trying to say, and I agree. However, you still do not justify how the aforementioned hypothetical construct is more true than what Crazyeyes has presented. "Let me tell ya, this is how people are going to react" is not valid reasoning. Both of your (Yours and Crazyeyes') scenarios are based on equally shaky ground as it stands - Your own observations and conclusions of how society would react in a hypothetical situation. Your assumption that a large portion of pirates would not buy the game anyway, or your assumption that a large portion of pirates would buy the game anyway - They're all weak arguments. I would remind you that in your presentation of your scenario, you did not give any reasonable proof why a lot of people who like the game would not buy it anyway, were they not able to pirate it. You talk about logical chains, but you have not even justified the underlying assumption of your scenario. The only "chain" came afterwards when you said that because of your assumptions, it would produce a certain outcome.
  4. You - are - arrogant, but not really because of the tone of your reply, that's just a minor part compared to the elephant in the room. It's because - as showcased by every single one of your posts in this thread - You quite obviously think your reasoning is already too good to stoop to things like actually reading and responding to the points that were already made to old arguments. Multiple times, even. You have not justified anything you've said with any modicum of reasoning, except with silly and condescendingly insulting "I'm right, and you're wrong!" proclamations with no basis or any attempt at explanation, like: What's really amazing is that you say you'd rather have a discussion based on facts, but are still able to concoct a scenario based on your own set of 'what ifs' - "What if" out of the 500 pirates, 250 bought the game? "What if" the majority of those who pirate simply don't buy the game if they can't pirate? etc, etc. Just because you phrase them as "This is right!" certainties with some implied statement that they're as solid as "financial graphs" doesn't make them any less of a hypothetical scenario, with no basis in fact. (The original example you were referring to was weak for that reason as well). In actuality your hypothesis is even worse than some others presented, because you just claim it as "fact" without even the support of reasoning out why it is likely so. If you're claiming that feelings shouldn't be taken as consideration, if the fair play argument is invalid, I challenge you to justify why. I - along with others - have already presented extensive reasons why they are valid and due consideration. You have answered none of them. Don't keep running away from the main arguments by: 1) Claiming that they're "non - facts", writing them off completely so you don't have to tackle them 2) Attacking only the most irrelevant examples 3) Going on to provide your own hypothetical constructs which you quite ironically present as "the facts" instead. 4) Claiming that the whole mess of disjointed thoughts, extremely poorly reasoned cop - outs, and equally unverifiable "what ifs" you've presented somehow magically justifies piracy. You have presented no "facts" or "financial graphs". Just because numbers were present in your post does not make it a "fact". Those numbers were merely to simulate a hypothetical scenario for better understanding, a situation based on several assumptions. Assumptions that are the real underlying basis for justifying that scenario. And as mentioned, your grounds for arguing validity for your scenario are equally weak as anyone else's predictions, if not more so. If I claim that 10 people love me based on the grounds of "because I'm awesome", the numbers alone are not what makes the statement a fact or fiction. Also, if you're going to make some vague statement about the "Anti - pirate people accusing the other side of things they do themselves", I'm going to have to ask you to explain this. It's a pointed accusation which you've made a couple of times now, I believe. And as is par for the course, you've given no reasoning to support it. This one also made me laugh a bit: "If the guy I extorted actually looked at it in a POSITIVE way, I was merely offering him an amazing trade to give me a mere hundred bucks in exchange for his priceless life!"
  5. Well, personally my own contribution to the length of this thread has mostly come from repeating the point on fair play every other post, because we keep getting new entrants into the debate who bring up arguments that are just slightly differing forms of the old ones. As for your point - Yes, it's a generally accepted fact that not all piracy is of the "Pirate and keep" nature. However, this point still does not address the point of fair play because: 1) The issue of fair play arises at the point of trade, not what you decide to do with what you've gained afterwards. For instance, if someone threatened you into giving up all the money in your wallet "In exchange for your safety", the fact that he gave some of that money away later to an orphanage still does not mitigate the fact that you were coerced into giving him what he wanted, against your will and to your detriment. (Also for anyone reading this, please do not go into the "No real money was lost" argument again) 2) Just as the statement that not all piracy is "Pirate and Keep" implies, there are still going to be many who do pirate and keep the game. Furthermore, how are you going to prove that those who said they didn't keep it are telling the truth? It's the same problem when trying to justify piracy with "I still pay for it later when I can afford it". It's an unverifiable claim that depends on the person with the most to gain from lying about it to tell the truth. It also strongly links back to point 1), as the developers are - justifiably - going to have the same perspective and feel unfairly treated by this "Pirate first, maybe pay later" deal they're being forced to accept.. 3) As mentioned earlier, despite whatever you may think of a "lousy" product, it is safe to say that most people still derived some entertainment value from it. Therefore, you still gained something from piracy without paying for it, even if you didn't keep the game. And it is entirely possible that some people actually got a lot of entertainment value out of a game or other digital media due to differing tastes. I may think Farmville is a waste of time and a shameless grab for cash with an inferior product - But apparently there are still millions out there who are willing to throw cash at Zynga for it. That still does not justify me causing harm - Real or perceived - to the company just solely on that basis. That still does not justify me forcing their company to accept an alternate deal - Where I hack into their servers to pass out free colored cows/barns/whatever to their users until they come up with a better product, for instance.
  6. If we get into an argument over the validity of this debate, then it's really going to become the Monty Python Argument Clinic. That's a topic I'm not as interested in exploring, so I'll just leave it that we're all entitled to our opinions of the discussion overall. However I will point out that you have come in many times, engaged with the discussion, presented your arguments, and only now when I have presented a serious challenge to their validity and given my own counter points do you start claiming that you think the argument is pointless to begin with.
  7. No, that misses the point of debate entirely. As I have explained, something being moral or not should be based on facts, logic, and reasoning. Whether something is moral or not is the conclusion reached by debate on the underlying arguments, not the fundamental starting point. If my underlying arguments are shown to be weak under examination and yours strong, then the conclusion is that piracy should be considered moral. If your underlying arguments are shown to be weak after examination with mine strong, then the conclusion is that piracy should be considered immoral. If something is logically and reasonably shown to be moral / immoral, you still have the option whether or not to abide by it. Most people are going to continue doing what they were doing anyway. That's why it was mentioned earlier that the point of the thread is not to change behavioural patterns, immediately. The point is to examine arguments on both sides, and if the stance that you are taking (Piracy is morally justified) is shown to be fundamentally weak under examination - Which is the opinion I hold, and which I believe I have adequately reasoned out in the thread - to at least get people thinking about what they're doing is really okay.
  8. I happen to agree that the law is not something to be taken as an absolute. Many laws have often proved to be detrimental to mankind's and society's overall interest, instead of serving to advance it. I also disagree with the premise that something's necessarily right / wrong just because a large/larger portion of society agrees/disagrees with it. Whether or not something is morally right or wrong should be decided by constant evaluation of the facts, logic, and reasoning behind the issue, not based on blind adherence to laws (Which should only be meant to codify and enforce the conclusions of such analysis) or just because it happens to be the popular thing to believe in at that time (Popular does not necessarily mean right. In fact I personally hold the view that popular opinion is often the ignorant one) That being said...I am saying that piracy remains morally wrong, and any arguments in favor of it remain weak. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am arguing this not based on laws or popular opinion nor have I ever have, because as mentioned, it completely misses the main point. I have already repeated my arguments based on principles of fair play multiple times. I will not retype them in entirety just for individuals who have not bothered to read the thread and previous discussions, so here's a copypasta:
  9. It wasn't a placeholder. I typed a full post, was editing it, accidentally removed my entire text and posted somehow, and had to retype the whole thing.
  10. I didn't identify any condescension in his post. You might want to point out which part made you felt condescended to. Once again, the point of the analogy was to make the point that emotional harm can be considered real and damaging to the victim of the act. When making such examples the concern should be whether the example is actually relevant and applicable to the point in question, not the "devastating" nature of the example itself. It's sounding increasingly like you're splitting hairs over the repugnance of rape to avoid addressing the main issue here - The consideration of emotional harm as part of the damages a developer endures. Just for emphasis - The point was not to draw comparisons between a rape victim to a piracy victim. The point was to showcase that emotional harm is generally considered by society to be a valid consideration when evaluating overall damage done to a victim. Pirates are not being compared to rapists, here. ...Also, you're saying that posters should not behave in a condescending manner, and then turning right around and quoting the dictionary definition of a word in your post. Unless you were putting it there as an extraneous reference for yourself, the only other reason for that is that you're assuming that I or another person reading is not able to understand its meaning on our own, despite - in my case - actively using the word. What was that about condescension again? I never made an argument like that and I really can't explain myself more simply than I already have. Go back and quote where I say "losses need to be material to be considered real." I think you'll find that all I say is "potential profit is not the same as loss" and "I don't want to argue about things like hurt feelings when we could be debating with facts." I don't understand how everyone continues to think i'm arguing anything other than the words I've written in my posts. ...You're acknowledging yourself - right in this very post which you're trying to refute me - the veracity of my claim. By your own statement, emotional hurt does not constitute "facts". I'm going to assume that I miscommunicated my meaning of the word "Losses", so here it is - I'm defining "losses" to include a reduction of a person's emotions and mentality to a lesser state, from a previously more complete state of mind. "Hurt Feelings", "Loss of perception of control", "Loss of feeling of dignity", all constitute "losses". This is in addition to observable losses in the material world, of course. Also, once again your declaration here proves that the horror of rape itself in the example given by Rathlord is not really the issue here - The real issue is that you're rejecting potential emotional damages as a consideration offhand, without really getting around to justifying why. So here, now - Would you explain why emotional damages, which are considered very real and due consideration in real - life courts of law, are being written off by yourself as "non - facts"?
  11. This statement is a rather disingenuous now, when you deliberately take it out of context like that - The rape analogy was meant to illustrate how hurt feelings are no less real to physical/monetary harm, to the victim involved. There was never an attempt to make a direct comparison for piracy with rape. As mentioned earlier, I believe where you were misunderstood is when you made an argument for losses needing to be material to be considered real. I believe we've already discussed separately how potential future scenarios are almost always speculation, so it's not really a strong argument for either side of the fence - Whether you're talking about the potential profits or losses. The "Current non - material harm" perspective is where both I and Rathlord are coming from, since that's more readily justified. Since we're using that as the cornerstone of our arguments - Indeed, it's one of the only arguments to be had if you remove any discussion of future potentialities - it would be easy to misunderstand your arguing against that point, taken in conjunction with your earlier statements emphasizing the non - monetary nature of the loss, as arguing for piracy overall. That's my take on the debate thus far.
  12. As far as I recall, no one against piracy has ever made such an assertion as justification for their stance in this thread. The first person to bring out the point about potential profit/loss was using it as grounds to justify piracy. The same as numerous other pro - piracy posters since. Just speaking personally, I don't recall any other piracy discussion I've been in where "lost sales" was used as grounds for being against piracy either. It's always been about the perspective that piracy is basically theft in digital form - Taking something without permission. "There's no real lost sales/money cost", on the other hand, has always been a hallmark argument by those who think piracy's okay. So the idea that the majority of anti - piracy opinion is arguing on the grounds of lost sales seems to me to just be a convenient straw man, really.
  13. Classic logical fallacy - the slippery slope argument. If I do A, then A leads to B and B leads to C and C leads to D so A leads to D. Nobody can predict the future or what my actions will cause others to do. It's not debatable. The only thing my piracy directly leads to is the game developers not selling me a copy of the game. Whether or not thier feelings are hurt by my act of piracy they have not incurred any monetary loss because of it. If you're not convinced it's a fallacy, there is this: "potential profit" and "potential loss" are essentially the same thing when it comes to the effects of piracy because neither of them can be measured. As to piracy directly contributing to a lack of sales? Sure, I can see that. My individual tendency to pirate doesn't cause this alone but the burden of ten million pirates might. Then again, a game might have failed simply because it was bad. Unless a publisher straight up says a game didn't make money due to an insane amount of piracy then we're only speculating when we see that a game wasn't profitable and say it was because of pirates. I'll leave it at here for now, some friends want to play video games - that I legally acquired with United States currency, no less! In short....No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope "The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect." "The process may involve causal relationships between intermediate events, but in any case the slippery slope schema depends for its soundness on the validity of some analogue for the physical principle of momentum. " " Validity of this analogy requires an argument showing that the initial changes actually make further change in the direction of abrogating A easier." So whether or not an argument can actually be defined as a slippery slope depends on the validity of the chain of reasoning linking the events together. "A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to E" does not by itself turn the argument into a slippery slope, no matter what the internet thinks. If you can justify how "Some people pirating" becomes "More people pirating" becomes "Eventually a loss for the developer" is an unsound premise, I'm willing to listen. With regards to "there's no monetary loss" - As myself and a few others have repeated multiple times in the thread, that is not the point. The point is whether you have caused harm to the developers as they perceive it, which you have. Monetary losses are merely one of the many potential harmful things that can be inflicted on developers. ...And as mentioned in my above post, my original arguments against piracy were grounded in principles of fair play. I will drop the potentially erroneous assumptions of a future scenario if you do - But a large part of your premise is based on the grounds that there's no loss to the developer because it's all "potential profits". So?
  14. Quite frankly, you accuse me of repeating a point over and over when it's quite obviously fault on your part for failing to demonstrate an understanding of the debate in progress, as shown multiple times in the thread. The argument about "what if" in future only came into the discussion because a previous poster threw in an opinion that he would actually buy less if there was no piracy. I admit that a future prediction is not a terribly good argument under any terms, but I have at least given a justification for my extrapolation based on current behavioural trends, and not a "piracy is good just because I think it would be bad if there were no piracy" argument. I will drop any contentions about "what if" scenarios if you do... Except that it's the pro - piracy argument that's the one which has been persistently touting "potential profits". Future predictions are only fallacious when they come from me, but not when they are forming the basis of your own arguments? My original arguments were based off principles of fair play - Which the pro - piracy side has yet to address, forever repeating the "piracy causes no losses" mantra in all its forms like a broken record. To answer the last point - Once again you beautifully illustrate the self - centredness of the arguments from your position. Why do you assume that you are automatically entitled to enjoying a digital product that's a luxury good? If do not like a particular luxury car company in real life, what justifies you causing harm to that car company just based on your dislike of their products/services? If it's not available, just don't buy it. If it's not affordable, you don't buy it. If it's not accessible, you don't buy it. If it's not reliable, you just don't buy it. If you don't like someone, you are free not to deal with them - You are still not justified in causing harm - Real or perceived - By taking what you want from them without their consent. You think that list is some sort of superior argument for piracy. It misses the point completely, so - It's not. The point is that not only you should feel the deal is fair. A fair deal necessitates both sides agreeing without being under duress. And if either side feels the offered deal is not fair, they can decline the deal. You may not, however, force them into another deal of your own making. That's where that neatly compiled list falls to pieces. It only takes into account your perspective, and assumes that if the developer does not meet your requirements you are somehow justified in forcing the deal on your terms. It goes in with the underlying assumption that if you don't like the deal originally offered by the developers, you are still entitled to get your hands on goods rightfully owned by them anyway. You have the choice of walking away from the deal you don't like, but you are depriving developers of the same freedom of choice. I have repeated this argument a few times, now. Here's how the deals are playing out, with your reasoning: Developers don't meet your requirements (All the points in that list) -> You are allowed to take for yourself what you want from them anyway (Their product), they are not allowed to just walk away and take their product with them. You don't meet developer's requirements (Money, respecting their IP) -> They are not allowed to take for themselves what they want from you (Your money), but you are allowed to walk away and take your money safely with you. Why don't you just work to help people then, and hope that they will see fit to compensate you if they feel like it - instead of working just so you can get a previously agreed on amount of pay? So you're being as "selfish" as you claim developers are? That's a patently ridiculous argument, once again grounded in blind self - centredness.
  15. Just in the hope that the "Piracy does not cause losses to the developer, it's all potential profit" argument can stop, or at least move in a new direction - Here is my counter - point, once again - That is not for you to decide on behalf of the developer. I brought up a comparison with you getting bullied by your boss at work. How's that? Are you suffering any sort of material loss? Is your hearing impaired because you got yelled at? Did he take your wallet and beat you over the head? No - But you believe that he caused you damages nonetheless - Emotional damages, mental damages, taking away your dignity - All non - material losses that your boss may feel is trivial, but could be considered very real and damaging to the victim. As I have argued far earlier in the thread, "material" losses are not the only losses to be considered here. So for the developers - Loss of control over their intellectual property, feeling that they're being treated unfairly, all can still be considered as losses on the part of the developers. You may argue the severity of said loss and whether it's trivial, whether it was damaging enough to warrant compensation or any other form of corrective action, but you - As the perpetrator - should not be telling the victim that he cannot claim he suffered loss at all on the sole basis of material losses. That - again - Is not for you to decide, since material losses are not all there is. As an additional point, you are not just lowering potential profit - You are also causing potential losses to the developer. How's that? Every time you pirate, you have the potential to cause people who actually did pay for the game to feel like they got the wrong end of the deal. They worked for their money, paid for the game, and at the end of it they ended up with the same product that someone else pirated for free. It is entirely possible that will stop paying for it in future and pirate games themselves, thus causing the developer to reach a point where they are unable to pay for any more development, and have to cease operations. Your actions directly contributed to a potential stage in future where they actually suffer losses from a behavior that you were complicit in. And that's only if the developer manages to turn a profit this time round. A lot of pro - piracy opinions conveniently forget that your much touted potential "profits" are only profits if the legit sales of the game have already paid for all the costs involved. If rampant piracy of their most recent game contributed to the developer ceasing operations in the present due to inability to repay their costs, then there is no profit at all - It is then entirely justifiable to argue that they did suffer an immediate loss due your actions.
×
×
  • Create New...