Jump to content

Sev Dreamweaver

Member
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sev Dreamweaver

  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.
  16. The problem with claims such as "I'd buy less if there wasn't piracy" is that it's a claim that only the person making it is able to verify, much like "I always buy the games I like after trying out the pirated copy". It's why personal anecdotes are generally weak arguments for or against any point. Furthermore, that claim completely goes against how we would generally expect people to behave, in a similar circumstance. Since there was mention of groceries, consider this - Let's say a local store decides that they will not stick a price on any of their stuff - You can just walk in, take what you need, and leave. Let's also go all the way and assume that said stuff didn't cost the local store anything, just to make the comparison more similar. The local store is giving away this stuff with the expectation that their customers will be honest enough to pay them the fair market price for the stuff they've taken, after taking it home with them. Now - would you expect most people come back later to pay them for stuff they already own, or is it more likely that most of them would self - justify not paying because "Eh, it's not like Mr Shopkeeper is making a loss anyway", "Eh, I found a couple of rotten apples in the carton I brought home. He doesn't deserve all that money ". Or, as the above poster is honest enough to admit at least "Eh, I don't really care". Do you honestly expect people to be paying more overall for the things they have taken? I think the reaction of most people to piracy already pretty much shows how most of society would behave in a situation where piracy is completely justified. Add in internet anonymity to that mix, and you don't even have a social pressure incentive for treating the "shopkeeper" fairly. Yes, you say you would be fair and honest. Doesn't everyone? But you are not most people. If for every 9 people who quietly kept their stuff without paying - despite having enjoyed the benefits - you became the 10th who did pay what your stuff is worth, the shopkeeper is still being treated unfairly. So no, the earlier point still stands - You are still forcing your version of a "fair" deal on developers who - Unlike the hypothetical generous grocery store - do not agree to what you're doing, and in fact actively protest against what you're doing. It's "Cool as-is" only because you're on the winning side of that deal. Whether or not the developer is making a "loss" as defined by you - Which already screams bias - remains irrelevant to whether the deal was conducted in a fair and equitable manner to both sides.
  17. There's no need to apologize - Whether or not the person claiming to be anti - piracy is actually practicing what he preaches is a point - Just not a very good one. For one, just because someone professes a belief presently doesn't mean he always felt that way. People grow, learn, and hopefully improve themselves in the process. Someone strongly being against theft now could well be a reformed thief who was notorious in the past, for instance. For another, arguments should be judged on their own merits instead of who is the person making them. If not, any argument about morality is going to stop after someone says "What, so are you saying you're a perfect saint?" Anyhow, looks like the thread has mostly fizzled, so unless someone brings something fresh to the discussion I'll just respond to this last statement here: That is actually not a very accurate perspective. Yes, "right" and "wrong" are rarely absolute concepts - but we can still judge something to be "more likely right" and something else to be "more likely wrong". By utilizing fact, reason, and logical thinking, we can determine which side has a stronger argument. For instance, let's review most of the major arguments that have been made in favour of piracy: 1) "I pirate because I can't afford it" - Extremely weak argument. Shouldn't even have been mentioned. 2) "I pirate because I can't get any info otherwise" - Weak argument if you're saying you can't get any, or very little info. And if you acknowledge you can still get decent amounts of info, it becomes a self - defeating proposition for piracy. 3) "I pirate because no one gets hurt by it" - Weak argument, it only seems strong because so many on the internet use it - to the point that few dare to challenge it, for fear of being ostracized in whatever community they're in. I'm not going to go into the arguments against the above points all over again, so on the off chance that someone wants to continue the discussion I would ask that they read the thread and respond to the points already made, instead of repeating an unoriginal argument ad infinitum. I have brought up a single main argument based on real - world principles of fair play that counter points 2) and 3), and have justified why such fair play should also be applied for digital media. Thus far, I have not seen any realistic rebuttal to this point. One side's stance is significantly stronger than the other. This is why I personally hold the opinion that piracy is wrong, instead of taking an "either side could be right" point of view. And if someone counters the argument reasonably, or brings up new points in favor of piracy, I will examine the new argument, re - examine my thought processes, debate further if need be, think about which one makes more sense, and if necessary, change my mind and point of view. As it should be. Do not be the person who clings obsessively to his own belief that he is right, and never considers examining his reasoning; But also do not fly to the other extreme and become an apathetic person paralyzed with the thought that he might be wrong, who never takes a stand for anything. Choose instead to be someone who constantly hones his analysis and argumentative skills, someone who spends his life improving instead of standing still, either because of pride or fear. (Debate more on internet forums )
  18. ...So there's no point in debating anything, ever, then? If you'd notice, you are also arguing - Arguing against the merits of forum discussion, like the one we just had. And that's fine. Healthy discussion is conducive to both sides' mental development, even if a consensus is not reached. You can believe anything you wish to - But it's a different matter entirely whether you know why you believe what you believe in. If beliefs were never challenged, people would never have the opportunity to examine their thought processes leading up to their beliefs. In other words, all we'd have is blind faith. Naturally, there are always going to be people who refuse to participate in constructive discussion. Just don't let negativity and snarky comparisons to winning retard races dissuade you from putting your ideas out in the open, asking for other ideas, and debating the merits of each. Expanding your horizons is how you grow as a person. In fact, if you constantly find yourself running from debating your beliefs, perhaps you might consider whether it's because deep down you know you aren't able to justify them publicly, at all. As for the topic of piracy itself - Yes, for the most part, people aren't going to be persuading each other to change deep - seated beliefs, but the point is not change - at least, not immediately. The point is to get people thinking at least, instead of clinging to a single set of beliefs and - perhaps more importantly - never questioning their supposed moral superiority in the matter. To answer the implied accusation - Yes, I have pirated before. I have no doubt that during my usual course of web - surfing I also get involved in numerous IP violations unwittingly, by taking and using images that don't belong to me, or a variety of other offenses. I do my best not to these days, especially when it's quite obvious that it *is* going to be a violation of someone else's property, but I can't say that I've never done it - Because I have. The point is not to proclaim that I - or anyone taking a stance against piracy - is an angel in such matters, but to suggest that what is happening is morally wrong, and perhaps everyone should think twice when you're looking at that torrent file you're downloading, and consider whether you are really justified in doing so. Not just blithely accept that what you're doing is okay because of the kind of faulty reasoning displayed earlier in the thread, and in the other one. Or worse, thinking that it's okay just because you are unquestionably in the right in everything you say, or do. Regarding the future of the internet and such technology - Yes, a lot of people are going to have the power to do whatever they want, with digital media. But having the power to do something does not mean it is morally justifiable to do it. To use the old adage - Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. The boss you're working for has the power to make your life miserable for his own amusement. A corporation has the power to bind you to lopsided contracts that lock you into only patronizing them. A tyrannical government can use the strength of its military and nuclear arsenal to forcibly impose their will on their neighbors. All of them can do it, but most people agree that forcing your will on someone else against their own desires is morally wrong - so they shouldn't do it. Is it only wrong when big, powerful entities misuse their powers against you, but justifiable "because no one really gets hurt" when you do it to someone else? Also, just to clarify - I'm not from a first - world country. I'm from Malaysia. No one's saying anyone is - or is going to be - perfectly honest, but there's a large difference between someone doing something potentially wrong, and just not thinking about it because that's the easy way out (And flying into a rage when someone dares to question whether they're doing is morally justifiable, how dare they); And someone doing something potentially wrong, taking the time to pause for a moment to think "Hey, is what I'm doing here the right thing to do?"
  19. Ok, that's fine. It's your opinion of what works for you, and I can respect that. This stance, however, is very different from your initial statement that other sources of information are generally "piss poor" across the board now, isn't it? I happen to agree that a lot of game titles I think are lousy get snapped up despite the generally poor quality of the games themselves - But that's just our opinion, isn't it? If a couple thousand other people are going to throw money at the hundredth Farmville clone I might think it's stupid, but it's still their money and their life to live. It's why recognizing where personal opinion starts and ends is important. No, I'm not suggesting we get a committee together to petition a change in such companies. I'm saying that if you don't support these companies, simply leave them and their products alone. Find and support upcoming indie titles. Get started on your own, if you're so inclined. If a company's only "crime" is producing game titles that you do not like personally, or are otherwise engaged in business practices that you just do not agree with (i.e. you simply don't like it, as opposed to business practices that are outright dishonest) it is morally unjustifiable to force said company into a deal that they do not want, just so you can get your hands on something they rightfully own, on your own terms. Terms that the company does not agree to and most likely actively protests against. Even if you do like the game and hold up your end of the deal, there are going to be countless others who are going to use that as a pretext to never getting around to paying the developer, at all. That's the essence of my argument, made much earlier in the thread.
  20. Judging factual evidence =/= judging something subjective as a game. A completely wrong and assumptious claim. I think companies need to adapt and get with the program. Fair enough on the demo comments. I was just simply pointing out that what's "enough" to come to an educated opinion on the game differs from person to person. You simply cannot claim that one type is unquestionably superior to another, and if the game developers do not provide the type you want - That it's automatically justification for claiming little information on the subject. As for game reviews, videos, etc not being factual evidence - You are able to observe how the game mechanics work in Let's Play videos. Game reviews often discuss the basic workings of the game (For instance, they would be talking about how you have no weapons and are constantly forced to hide in Amnesia, how you'd need light to maintain your sanity, etc). That's factual evidence right there. Just because something is an opinion piece, like a review, does not mean that it will not refer to the mechanics of the game itself. In fact, if it's a good review it would draw its opinions based on the underpinnings of the game and not just whether the reviewer "feels" it's okay. Lastly, about companies needing to adapt - Yes, perhaps. But again the question beckons - You can just walk away from a company that doesn't provide a demo, and not touch their product at all. If other gamers agree with you, said company will be going out of business soon enough thanks to market forces. Whether to adapt or not remains their decision to make, not yours. Why the need to pirate a game that you emphasize came from a company whose practices you don't support in the first place?
  21. You have game reviews from websites dedicated to the purpose, gaming blogs, walkthroughs, video commentaries, forum discussions from other people who already have the game. If you believe some of them have reason to give biased reviews (IGN, for instance), then take it with a grain of salt, and also take into account other opinions as well. Some of you appear to be saying that demos are a poor way for judging a game as well, since developers would obviously pick and choose the best features to showcase while hiding the bad points. I happen to agree, but that's exactly why it should be taken into consideration along with everything else, not just by its own merits. Even if there is a lack of a proper demo you are not exactly in the dark, with all the other sources. Speaking personally, I downloaded the PZ demo, read the reviews from several sources, and watched Eckyman's Let's Play videos before buying the game - And I found that it was more than enough for a good picture of the game. It's like doing research on any topic on the internet - Taken alone, any one source is insufficient to form a decent picture. That's why you have such a variety of media from different sources to choose from. If CNN is being biased, try BBC, Al - Jazeera, other alternative media. Claiming that they all have their own slant, and therefore you are unable to form any sort of educated opinion on an issue at all - let's say, the Snowden case - without actually talking to Mr Snowden in person is an argument that borders on ridiculous. There's good reason this time period is being referred to as the "Information Age". In short, you appear to be arguing that anything short of a full - scale copy of the game is "not good enough" for coming to a relatively educated opinion about the game. Sounds a bit self - serving, no? Also - If you believe that a company is engaging in bad business practices and you'd be gambling your money on their product - Just don't buy it, perhaps? The same way a person would walk away from a used - car dealer that you feel you can't trust. Why is it that in the case of software you are going in with the assumption that you're automatically entitled to said product, even when you've already emphasized that you distrust the company that made it?
  22. Your points are almost flawless, except one thing - All your examples are just wrong. In a case above, again - the customer, no matter how much the lamber costs, can go up to it, pet it, can check it out and see if it has any visible injuries/If it is fed properly by looking at it's body built. With our game industry, it works in a different way. If we were to do the same example but with the way it works in the game industry, people would not be able to see the lamb, talk to the owner of it, or see if it is good enough or actually sick and injured. We would be having to trust posters that the OWNER wrote about his lamb showing all of the good sides, and hiding or concealing those sides that are bad in it, making it look flawless. Either this, or we would have to trust another person who have bought the lamb from the owner before already and claims that it was good, although he is a different person and by "good" he means that it is actually fed properly, but he seem to have overlooked that the lamb is sick and has a couple of injuries. That is, without even saying that ONCE AGAIN in your example, the lamb is limited. If it worked the same way game industry works, you could've copy-pasted the lamb and sold it for as much people as you want. In the game, you DON'T have to re-work another game from scratch when someone buys the first one from you.You copy-paste it, and let another guy buy it. And then you continue. In a case with the lamb - it is just 1, it's there, and when someone buys it, you have to raise a new one. I am not a pirating fan either, but the points that you write make absolute no sense regarding how piracy REALLY hurts the developer. Your examples only work with real life businesses, where all the products are limited and you can't just simply copy it over with a simple Ctrl + C Ctrl + V. You weren't even bothered to read the points made earlier in the discussion then, I take it? 1) "I can't get any objective information on the quality of the game" - Already answered. You do, from a wide variety of outside sources. You just choose not to use them in favor of getting a full pirated copy of the game. 2) "This doesn't REALLY hurt the developer" - Already answered. Once again, that is not for you to decide for the developer, the same way you wouldn't like someone else making decisions on how you should think for you. I have already explained in detail why I believe that physical cost to the developer is irrelevant. They believe that your actions have a negative effect on them and do not want to do their business your way (Pirate first, buy *maybe* later), and they are well within their rights to feel that way. You are free not to deal with them if you don't like the terms. That does not give you the right to force a deal on your terms when the other side doesn't want it that way. The "lamb" is not meant to be a direct analogy to be compared pirated games, but rather to illustrate the principles of fair play that are violated every time you decide to present to developers a "deal" that has all its terms skewed in favour of yourself, and yourself only. So, in reply to yet another variation of the "You have flawed logic" theme - Please read the thread if you're really interested in meaningful discussion.
  23. But, again, we're not dealing with something physical. There is no "land." There is no "infrastructure." There's just a copy of game content being passed around, one that's ideally free from costing the developers anything, unless they've made the mistake of auto-updating it (a feature that was removed from PZ for this very reason). It's abusive to make use of someones finite resources in such a manner. But, if you want to argue the initial cost and the expected return for a product for a reason not to pirate, I can get behind that. No, actually. I'm not arguing that and will not use physical costs as a point, as it's too easy to get bogged down in subjective opinions as to what constitutes a fair return for developers.The reason why I have used real - world analogies is that I've found that easier for most people to relate to, as compared to using a closer digital analogy - In which case the default bias for a large proportion of content consumers boils down to "If I can obtain it without consequences, it's okay". This also stems from a personal belief that online/digital communities are still largely in a growth stage - Adolescence, if you will - And do not fully appreciate the type of power that they wield, and have not yet grown to a stage where they will generally use it responsibly. But that's another whole topic altogether. Suffice to say that real world analogies of abuses of power strike closer to home, because that's where we've already established generally accepted moral frameworks. It's a lot easier than constantly banging your head on the wall of "Yeah - uh", "Nuh - uh" that goes with arguments built around a virtual world where people are still in the process of laying down ground rules. I have built my arguments around principles of fair play and fair trade, as that's a base concept grounded in both the real world and digital media that's easier for most people to agree with. Whether or not a perception of "value" has basis in the physical realm should not be relevant to the principle of fair play. Allow me to justify that statement with another analogy : Let's say you have a pet lamb that you've brought up since childhood. Now it's of age where you have to let it go and sell it to someone else who'll slaughter it for meat. You know, objectively, that a pound of meat goes for around 10 dollars. Your lamb has around 20 pounds of meat, so the "value" of your lamb in physical terms is 200 dollars. However - this is a lamb that you have a certain sense of emotional attachment to. You've reared it for years, come to love it (No, not that way. Get your head out of the gutter), and are only very reluctantly parting with it. This leads to premise number 1: So anyhow, you - the hypothetical owner - decide that you are only going to let it go for 300 dollars.The additional 100 dollar "value" is not grounded anywhere in the physical realm - But it's your lamb, and by God that's what it's worth to you. You're not going to let it go for any less. Furthermore, you will only let it go to someone who will promise you that he will not slaughter your lamb unnecessarily painfully. This leads to premise number 2: Now - Let's discuss the probable reactions to our hypothetical owner. Most people are probably going to dismiss his demands as ridiculous and leave him alone, but there's always a chance that there'll be someone who views it in a different light - The owner cares a lot for his lamb, so that would probably mean that it's only been fed the best feed, it is not going to have any hidden injuries, etc. So said customer decides it's good value for him to get higher quality meat, and decides to buy the lamb at the higher price. This leads to premise number 3: I would encourage anyone reading to consider the premises of fair play that I have described, and see how piracy fundamentally violates such principles. Once again, it doesn't matter whether or not anything physical actually changed hands, or whether there was a physical cost involved - An idea, a legendary item in a game, a relationship built over an MMO - They're all non - physical entities that technically do not exist in the real world - but someone who has built it up, worked for it, and owns it is going to assign a value to it and cherish it, and it would be immoral for another person to hijack it without consent. No matter how "irrational" it may appear without an equivalent real - world cost. It should be us gamers of all people that understand the strong attachments to such digital constructs and work the hardest to protect fair play in the digital realm, not be the first ones to tear it down.
  24. The game is not worth the $8 and is a rip-off of a Japanese game with almost the same name.How is this a good example? People pirated it as a demo, does not mean they HAVE TO buy it. Playing a demo does not force you to spend money on a game.. Your logic is flawed. 1) "Not worth it" - Already answered. 2) "Pirated copy = Demo" - Yes, if you were actually playing a demo - and not a pirated full copy of the game. Just because you're justifying your actions by calling it a demo doesn't make it an actual developer - sanctioned demo. You could refer back to what was previously said on fair trade - If one of the parties doesn't approve of the terms, it is not "fair". Not fair, in this context, being you essentially telling the developer "Hey, I'll copy a full version of the game, try it out in its entirety first, and then if I find it okay I'll maybe give you the money for it much later" and going ahead and doing it without the developer's consent. Often even with the developer's protests. 3) "Demo doesn't mean I have to buy it" - Yes, but earlier in the thread we had posters justifying pirating by stating that they would buy the game "if" they found it worth it. A claim which is also answered in point 1. Put simply, anyone would be able to pirate a game, derive the full amount of entertainment (Pirated full copy) from it - whatever it's worth to them, then just pass over the payment stage by claiming that they "didn't find it worth paying for". Once again, being able to distinguish between a developer - approved demo and a full copy pirated against the developer's wishes is key. One obviously does not equal the other. In short, you may want to read the thread first. Calling out someone on "flawed logic" without actually reading and understanding the arguments presented in context may be the norm on internet forums, but it's still poor argumentative technique.
  25. The problem with trying to justify piracy by judging whether it is "worth" a person's time and money is that there is little to no way to objectively apply such judgement, no matter how polished the game looks. For instance, I love traditional RTS games, loved C&C 3 and thought it was a step in the right direction. Then came the departure from the traditional RTS mechanics that was C&C 4, and for me personally - that was a lousy game that I would never pay for. But there were people out there who liked the faster pace of Four and the mechanics that it functioned on. Or take Project Zomboid itself. It's still full of bugs (I just lost my entire vegetable garden to the teleporting crop bug) and a lot of other portions of the game are still rough and unpolished - But that's fine, because that's the game I signed up for when I decided to put my money into buying the game. Someone else might get annoyed at this alpha state of the game and decide that putting money into it now is a waste of cash. Different factors contribute to different perceptions of whether a game is worth a player's money. A gamer these days can find out about the type of game you'll be buying from the myriad of gaming review websites, Let's Play Videos, or in this case the game's demo itself. In fact, as an additional benefit you'd be helping this burgeoning tertiary sector of the gaming industry by supporting such review websites and tertiary content developers. There's really no cause to claim that you had to pirate a game because you didn't have any other way to get solid information on it. Put simply, if you find out that the game is not for you, not worth your time and money through the reviews, demos, and videos you've seen, just walk away. Pirating the game, deriving some entertainment benefit from it, and then only saying that you got no value from it - and refusing to pay - gifts you the best of it while leaving a developer holding an empty bag. It's a fundamentally dishonest deal even if you honestly think the game is not worth it in the end. To build further on my own analogy, it'd be like the government forcibly took away a piece of unused land belonging to you, built their infrastructure on it, and then only came to you and said "Well, our project didn't give us the benefits we foresaw, so we're not paying you".
×
×
  • Create New...