Lumpy said:
The obvious difference is that the store selling a plasma TV already paid $3000 on it, and the other $1000 go into wages, transport, etc. So if I stole the TV and left $3500 behind, I'd be hurting them.
What if you stole it direct from the manufacturer? Say it costs $500 to manufacture as we said before and you took it right off the end of the production line and left $500 behind. Thanks to your $500 gift, the company has the funds to manufacture another television to replace the one you took and you enjoy a television without having to pay the middle-man. The only thing you're denying them in this instance is the profit they could've made on the television you acquired, which in the case of piracy, is also what you're doing. You're denying them the profit they could've made had you purchased the product. Would that scenario be justified?
Lumpy said:
If I bought MotB from a store and stole NWN2 from the same store, I'd be hurting them as well.
But if I buy MotB and pirate NWN2, nobody loses, and pretty much everybody wins.
Yet once again you're denying the developer the income from the copy you pirated. You clearly want to play the game, meaning if you had the funds, you likely would've purchased it. Pirate's state that they "wouldn't have bought it anyway", therefore the developer has really lost nothing but if that is the truth, why are you playing it?
Lumpy said:
Furthermore, I'm not repricing it as I like. It's not like MotB itself is 60$, but rather MotB and a game I have no interest in playing.
... but you are. You clearly value it on some level as you've gone out of your way and spent time to acquire it. However you've decided that you'll pay what you think it is worth, rather than what the developer is asking for it. You do so, seemingly to send them a message that "well, it's not worth that" but if that really is true, wouldn't not buying or pirating the product at all, send them a clearer message? How is the developer to know that if they lowered their prices, they might sell more games and make more money, as opposed to thinking that if they lowered the price, the pirates "will just pirate it anyway"?
Lumpy said:
DarkUnderlord said:
If you don't value the game enough to purchase it for the price that's being asked, and you clearly lack the stamina to wait another 6 - 18 months for it to drop in price and appear in the bargain bin, why are you even playing it in the first place? What's wrong with waiting for the price to come down (assuming it does) and possibly buying a game you can afford in the mean-time?
Okay, so explain to me how that helps anyone?
Case 1: I play MotB when I want, I'm happy.
Obsidian sees another sale for MotB, that style of game is encouraged.
Obsidian gets money now.
Case 2: I wait until the bundle drops to 30$ - I play later than I want.
Obsidian sees another sale for NWN2 and MotB long after release. No style is particularily encouraged.
Obsidian gets the same 30$ later - they are worse off.
Win-win-win versus loss-loss-loss. Why should I choose the latter?
... because the latter clearly indicates to them that if they drop their prices, more people will see the gameas being worth that price and purchase it. Therefore sending them the message that maybe, their next game should be sold for less, thus bringing prices of games down for everyone's benefit. By purchasing MotB at full price, the developer will only assume that the purchaser has also purchased NWN2 (likely at full price) and will not receive any encouragement to lower prices. Your need for instant gratification has only served to send them the message that more full-priced expansion packs, coupled with NWN2 at full price, is the way to go.
Kraszu said:
Now you've already stated you don't care about the industry.
What do you mean? I buy games that I care for.
Sorry, my bad. That was one of the others.
Kraszu said:
As for system change as I said optional for software would be voluntary donations, maybe extra service for them like official server to access to nodding forums by cd key piracy will not be stopped whithout regulating of internet and I don't want that for more important reasons then piracy itself. I think that voluntary donations could work out since industry didn't collapse despite that pretty much everybody can download games, and direct donations means that developer gets 100% or close to it.
Why should the software industry work that way when no other product does? Why should software developers hope that there are enough honest citizens out there willing to send them cash to support their next game? Especially when places like Wikipedia, which is clearly enjoyed by millions, is constantly struggling to raise the funds it needs through that same system? If a developer is asking a price to be paid for their product and you don't think that product is worth that price, can't you just,
not play it at all? If you're not willing to pay the price that is being asked, why should you get it for free?
Gnidrologist said:
Having said that, movie industry seems to be getting along just fine, especially in USofA. Even too well for my liking, which is why i probably will never buy holywood movie on removable media.
So whether you pay for something or not is based on your own personal judgement as to how well they're doing?
Lumpy said:
Also, you can pay for it because you think it deserves the money it costs. I don't pay for it simply because I don't want to play it.
You are playing it though. NWN2 contains all the mechanics of the gameplay, the combat and magic systems and everything else. There is more to the games you play then just the content. You seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding for anything that is intangible or cannot be seen or held physically.
The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
Some humans take great pleasure in killing people. For various reasons which I hope I don't have to explain, we deny them that pleasure because it would cause an awful lot of harm to society as a whole.
I am not in the least interested in killing people - But i won't deny the murderers their right to try and murder me if he doesn't deny me my right to try and blow their brains all over the wall. Whatever happens after that is the consequence of our respective choices and their interactions.
Your argument appears to be that piracy is neither right nor wrong, it just exists because a few would want it. By the same token, you accept that others will do what they can to prevent or halt piracy and that their actions too are neither right nor wrong. The result of that position is that the competition between pirates and those who would thwart them will always be ongoing until such time as one or the other would falter. By that argument, you accept "our" (and I'll use "us and them" in terms of pirates and those against piracy) right to do what we can to stop the pirates. Which means you also accept both sides "right" to make their position against the other... And yet here you are, seemingly complaining about it? If you accept each side has the right to fight and that one side, should they win, has the right to enforce their worldview, why would you care?
The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.
You made the comment about the line where i said i was not a relativist. I will explain you why i am not, explanation that doesn't include "Because i say it."
"Competition is good while inside the context of the free market." equals "The morality of competition is relative to the context in wich it is considered." Therefore, we are talking about Relativism. Another one: "Killing is good while inside the context of War or Law." equals "The morality of killing is relative to the context in wich it is considered." Again, we are talking relativism: It is either "Killing is good, always" or "Killing is bad, always" - Those are absolute moral values.
Who's been talking about "moral absolutes"? We've been talking about whether piracy does or doesn't cause harm. So far, everyone appears to be agreeing that it does.
The Rambling Sage said:
I say: "Competition is good not matter what, period." In wich way am i a relativist?
DarkUnderlord said:
Well guess what? We won. You lost. We've made laws that result in death for a lot of what could be justified under your "individual morals" position.
There is something i will never understand, maybe because i read way too much Paradise Lost (Lost Paradise? Wich is the correct spelling in english?) as a kid - Were is the fun of winning by means of being a bunch of coward sheep hiding behind laws and faceless power instead of lossing like an individual or a loose group of individuals? I would get the later one every single time, even if it means bitter defeat each single time.
In what way is the strength of numbers being cowards? Pirates group together just as we would group together to stop them. Just because they haven't written anything down (although in many cases, they have), doesn't make them any less of a group. Our numbers are stronger and we have the capability to track, hunt pirates down and deal with them as we would choose. After your own statements (we exist and we have organised, therefore it must be okay), don't tell me you suddenly have a problem with our "right" to do so?
... and whatever happened to "Competition is good not matter what, period."? Suddenly we're back to "oh but you're all cowards and you hide behind faceless power". Relativist much? Your statements appear to belie your true nature.
The Rambling Sage said:
And since the debate is still raging, crime is as healthy as ever, and post-modernist selfish nihilism is all the rage talking about victory seems a bit premature.
I spoke of victory not in terms of "victory against the pirates" but in terms of "we established law and order" (victory against disorder or your "every man for himself", "law of the jungle" approach). This is our jungle.
The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
How is a developer who makes a game which is enjoyed by potentially hundreds of thousands of people "selfish gratification"?
The developer wants money. The developer likes making games. The developer likes the feeling that comes with making a great and popular game. If at least one of those variables were not true he would not be making games to begin with but by being a masochist, in wich case doing games because he does NOT like to make games would give him pleasure. Therefore, Selfish Gratification. He does not makes games for YOU to feel good but if by doing so he makes HIMSELF feel good - By means of money, popularity, or being recognized while doing something he likes or loves.
I accept that argument. However, did you stop to notice the difference between the actions of the developer and the actions of the pirate? The developer, through self-gratification, brings joy to many and harms none. The pirate, through his self-gratification, brings joy only to himself and in fact harms others in the process. The developer's actions cause no harm. The pirate's actions do.
The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
So you admit then that piracy harms the industry, even going so far as to destroy it? Which is against pretty much what most of the others here are trying to argue (which is "piracy harm the industry? Nonsense and piffle-swat! My piracy is only the good kind!").
You are misunderstanding me. I never argued it could hurt the industry - I argued that piracy was acceptable even if the entire industry was reduced to ashes in it's wake.
Only acceptable to you. You've already established that we who you claim hide behind our "faceless" power and "cowardly" laws, would find that unacceptable. As you state we have the "right" to exist and the force to uphold such existence, our position is therefore equally as viable.
Also:
The Rambling Sage said:
Yes, the consequences of piracy can be horrible - Global Warming, Zombie Apocalypse, The Fourth Reich, whatever.
Assuming the references to Global Warming etc.. were a joke, your intent appears to be quite clear, "piracy can be horrible". I assume that "horror" includes "harm" to the industry, which would mean quite clearly that you've admitted "piracy harms the industry". Otherwise, of what horror do you speak?
The Rambling Sage said:
About the ideological excuses for piracy i am on the same side with you: They should stop making stupid excuses and ideologies to feel justified and accept they care only for themselves - And find pleasure in such realization. The same goes for the other camp.
Yes, you stated in your first reply that "we assume pirates care". Well, all throughout this debate, the pirates have been telling us that they do. Now either that is the truth and they do, in which case your entire argument is meaningless or they don't, in which case they are wrong, untruthful and nothing but liars. I think you and I both agree that the latter is the case.
The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
By the way, you also completely failed to actually demonstrate either side as "right" or "wrong" in the argument.
Both sides are right, since they are defending their own interests in a culture built around protecting one's own interests and progressing towards personal ambition or pleasure. I am arguing against those who claim one side is "Wrong" while the other is "Right."
For the most part, "right and wrong" has been a side argument. My position since page one as been that "piracy harms the industry, therefore it should not be done". It's not just "being wrong" it's about destroying something which very few of us would want to see destroyed. Both sides have stated that they don't wish the industry to be destroyed (though some have since said they "don't care", which of course only serves to confuse the debate). However, if pirates are deliberatey going out of their way to ensure that they don't cause harm (by purchasing games they like), then they obviously care about "right and wrong" on some level. Why else would they defend their position? If they truly did not care, why waste their time on it?
The Rambling Sage said:
As i said, i am not a relativist: If selfish gratification is good for A, it is good for B too. If not, you are the relativist - Not i.
Then you've added nothing to the debate as by your own standards, both sides have the "right" to do what they see fit.
The Rambling Sage said:
DarkUnderlord said:
Adaptation (or survival) in this instance would have to result in the end of piracy.
Film, music, and books still survive and piracy on those mediums was not exterminated. I and my friends usually see movies before they hit cinemas, but movies are still being made and those talentless idiots who call themselves "Actors" nowadays are still making big money.
... and pirates are still watching those movies with talentless actors again and again and playing those "shitty games" while arguing to themselves they're "not worth the purchase". "Talentless idiots". Do I sense yet another attempt to morally justify the actions of a pirate? Interesting coming from one would appear to argue that such things aren't necessary.
The Rambling Sage said:
Just like there has been piracy (either as "Download" or "Buying games on the park") since the XT days and the industry grew all the same.
... and yet through-out this period, piracy has been fought.
The Rambling Sage said:
But the problem of being on the side of numberless sheep is that most of them would not be up for that kind of thing. See? By being on their side you are also renouncing to the pleasure killing pirates, in gory clive-barkerish ways, would give you.
"Numberless sheep"? Once again your turn of phrase belie's your true nature.
The Rambling Sage said:
Xi said:
We recognize that piracy causes the industry to break down and therefore we shouldn't do it. That is not relativism, that is simple logic.
That would be logical if pirates were interested in the industry not breaking down. At least my kind of pirate does not, so it is not logical for us to even care.
Your pirate, who would take pleasure in "talentless actors" and ruing the actions of those "faceless powers" while at the same time stating they "don't care", actually appear to care quite an awful lot. It is not logical for you to care, and yet you do? Why is that? Do I sense a need to justify one's actions?
The Rambling Sage said:
Xi said:
See how that fits the pirates? Again, they apply their own moral principals relative to this specific amoral activity.
Again, a misunderstanding. Are most pirates idiots looking for excuses? Yes, they are. Does that make piracy inherently wrong? No, it doesn`t. You must demonstrate piracy is WRONG in and out of itself with DEMONSTRABLE evidence not requiring a moral judgement or a relative consideration (it will destroy the industry is a relative consideration, since i, for an example, do not fucking care - And as such it does not demonstrate the "Wrongness" of piracy) for your argument to be LOGICAL. otherwise it is your opinion, not that there is nothing wrong with that.
You do care though, that's the problem. Again and again you state you don't and yet again and again, you deride those who would oppose you. Seemingly solely out of a sense of caring. By your own statement, nothing can ever be proven "right" or "wrong" simple because one side, somewhere, probably says they don't care about the other. And so if nothing can be proven right or wrong, why should we bother proving piracy is wrong? Unless of course, you care about it.
The Rambling Sage said:
Xi said:
If you pirate, other people pirate, and if we all pirate the system doesn't work.
Why should i care for the system instead of exploit it in my own benefit?
... because your exploitation destroys it. You clearly care about the games you play, otherwise you would not pirate them. You clearly care about movies, otherwise you would not download and watch them. You clearly care about a great deal of things, otherwise your very actions would not be what they are. If you truly did not care for computer games (and therefore, the industry of computer games), you wouldn't even bother playing them. You simply, wouldn't care.