Vault Dweller said:
Maybe, maybe not. I've never studied laws, and I'm too lazy to look for some legal definitions, so here is my layman opinion: taking something without being granted legal ownership (i.e. that doesn't belong to you) is fucking theft. There are different kinds of theft, obviously, but theft is theft.
The differences may not be interesting, but they are significant. The piracy argument is heated because there is no tangible loss on the victims part. Contrary to Roqua's stance, stealing is not wrong because someone gets something for free - it's wrong because someone else loses something of known value.
For example, people justify copying games, because they will buy it if it's good, or they wouldn't buy it anyway, or they might like it and tell their friends. These are all bullshit 'What ifs', and make a pretty weak argument.
'We payed $35 for that game from a distributer, and $5 in labor to put it on the shelves. And you took it from us without paying." is a very strong argument, and will trump any of the above excuses with any rational arbitrator.
"I haven't lost anything, but if they would have bought the game instead of stealing it, the supply chain would have split $50" is a bullshit 'What if' loss and a pretty weak argument. When you have an argument where both sides are bullshit 'What ifs' it gets really difficult to justify your position.
Sure, you can, and some people do, what's your point? Some people make copies of movies, some people make copies of designer items, copying ideas and styles. So?
My point is that if I buy a movie and make a shot-for-shot remake, I'm going to be sued and lose. If I buy some $5000 perfume and hire some smell expert to recreate the odor, I can sell it with impunity. From your layman view, these are the same actions - but one is illegal and the other isn't.
What about the resources it took me to make the game? Is time not the most valuable resource of all? Not to mention money I've already invested and will have to invest (yes, nothing is free).
Have you lost that time? Is your game any less done because I downloaded a copy of it? Do you have any fewer boxes in your inventory? You can't even say that you will sell 1 less copy of the game. Our carpenter friend can claim the time he spent building that one table (but not time spent on design or learning carpentry).
If I pirate your game, your worst-case loss isn't any worse than if I bought your game second hand, or played it on a friends computer, or even waited until it landed in the bargain bin. Why is copying a game illegal if the others aren't? Your expected loss is even less with piracy.
"At least not directly". There is your answer. Who cares whether or not you affect developers directly or indirectly as long you affect them?
I said 'At least not directly', because who knows how the retailer will react to the theft? It may be in a way that helps or hurts the developer, or doesn't affect them at all.
How's my position stupid? Do explain, without some fucked up analogies, please.
I love fucked up analogies, but here goes. Your trying to use an accepted belief "stealing is wrong" to make you case that "copying games is wrong" as if the two were the same. But the key differences in stealing and copying (a absolute, unchallengeable loss for the victim) is the key reason stealing is accepted as wrong. Unless the entire debate will consist of "Stealing is wrong" and "no victim no crime", you need to get your hands dirty with the details to talk about this stuff.
