Discussion in 'Software' started by Zinfandel, 2 Aug 2010.
You implicitly claimed to be trying to change peoples' minds with reasoned persuasion. That looks more like smug resignation to me; decided we ignorant youths aren't worth your time after all?
If you change your mind, my as-yet-unchallenged proposed moral structure is there. It's only 240 words.
It kind of agrees with your argument that if someone has no intention of paying anyway, then it's not a loss. If THAT isn't harming the industry, why do you feel that buying a used game is? Isn't it essentially the same thing? If someone has an old game they no longer wants and passes it onto someone else, then the result is the same. One person paid for the game, and one person is still using it.
The difference is, that the person who SAYS they had no intention of buying it anyway, may well have done so and we've no way of knowing. At least the original owner DID pay for it. At least there is something measurable there whereby I can see that some revenue DID go to the developers at some point.
Your argument is so nebulous as to be unprovable entirely.
And yes, I AM indignant that I pay and someone else doesn't. What's wrong with THAT?
At least I can say that I AM supporting the games industry.. not that "I might be depending on how you look at it, and how you interpret my arguments because I download everything for free and only buy the ones I like.... even the ones that have a demo available.. which, if you look at it the way I do, isn't really theft because there are no statistics to support that the losses endured outweigh the profits, and if I had no intention of buying it anyway, then it's not theft, right?".
It's clear cut with me: I download a demo, not a pirate copy. If I like it, I buy it, if I don't, I don't. If there's no demo, I'll just not bother with it at all. No ambiguity there.
That's as silly as complaining about the person in the chair next to you in the airplane only having paid only 25% of what you paid. Moral issues aside, please respond to my post at http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=2398429&postcount=436 will you? That's the heart of what we're debating here.
There's nothing wrong with it, but one point on which moral philosophers tend to agree is that emotions are not a sole basis for morality. Morality often drives emotion, but it can never be the other way around. You are entitled to feel indignated - in truth, I feel the same thing in that situation - but it has no moral weight. Morals are derived logically, not emotionally.
In any event, that's a minor quibble given that I essentially share your views on piracy itself. Still no challengers to individual try-and-buy piracy as morally acceptable.
I'd say boredom, from 22 pages of going over and over the same things, much more than smug resignation. But if it floats your boat to think otherwise, please do feel free
EDIT: oops, now 24. No it's still 23, had a blond mo there
Boiled, why have you not answered my question then, you are accusing me of blah, blah, but seem evasive yourself:
You seem to take that as a personal victory - that for 22 pages you've been consistently winning the argument. But you've still failed to raise a valid criticism of my model for moral piracy. In reality, you've sustained yourself by being pig-headed and refusing to examine other peoples' points of view, rather than by the strength of your own reasoning.
edit - I did answer that question. Read my post again. The one linked there in your quoted text.
The problem is your entire argument is based on flawed thinking, you treat each sale of a game as a unique item when in reality it isn't. It's simply a copy of the original game which remains with the developer/publisher at all times. All they are concerned with is how many of those copies they have recieved money for veruse how many copies they haven't recieved money for. The fact that a copy passed on in a second hand sale has originally provided the developer/publisher with some money is irrelevant to the issue, the second person is still using a copy without having paid the developer/publisher any money.
Let's see if an example will help clarify what i'm saying (and yes I know the figures are very unlikely to be even close to accurate but they should show what i'm trying to say) -
Developer A produces a game and sells 100,000 copies of it. As time goes by 15,000 copies of the game get into the hands of people who haven't directly paid Developer A and in this case 10,000 copies were due to downloads and 5,000 copies were from second hand sales. Now from Developer's A point of view 115,000 people have played their game but only 100,000 people have paid them for it, should they however only care about the 10,000 people who downloaded it and ignore the other 5,000 who've played it without paying them? Why should those 5,000 be allowed to play it without paying Developer A any recompense?
Nothing's wrong with that, but that's should be the basis of your argument. Not the claim that you're against piracy because of the harm it causes the industry when in fact you don't really care about that.
If someone downloads games, plays them for an hour and then on the back of that chooses to either purchase it or delete it and they do that in 100% of cases are they supporting the games industry any less than you? If they're buying the ones they like and deleting the rest after a short amount of play time is that morally wrong? Even if it may currently be legally wrong.
how have I attained a personal victory here, or even begin to perceive I have? Come on matey, you aren't Nexxo, and play a poor second
I'm sorry, but my decision to BUY games has nothing to do with my indignation that others don't. After all, my decision to buy them wasn't MADE because others don't. If that was the case, then maybe I'd just decide "Sod it... why should I when they don't?"
The fact is, it is a moral decision based on the fact that someone, or a team of people more likely, have worked very hard to produce something I'm interested in using. I feel it's only right to reward them with the, let's be honest, relatively small fee they are charging for it.
My decision would be the same no matter how many people other than myself did or did not pay for it.
It's just right.
I still think a lot of this has to with where you are in life. The fact is, I'd not even notice losing £40, yet a 14 year old kid would think it's a lot of cash. Most students would begrudge paying £40... even early into your post graduate years you may think the same. You reach a stage though where you just think... fair enough... you put a lot of work into this... you want £40? No problem. Just because you can.
I still insist that should you care to study this, there will be a massive disparity of ages that polarises the pro and anti sides of this argument, and the deciding factor will be personal wealth.
People will justify piracy because they fear losing the ability to download stuff they otherwise couldn't afford to buy. An uncomfortable truth, but I'm willing to bet that it is indeed the truth.
This post isn't necessarily aimed at boiled. His quote just was a launching point... I think we pretty much agree on the basics.
You're not even bothering to participate in the discussion anymore, but here are the key points for you again in case you decide to drop the random ad hominem attacks and think a bit:
-I am against piracy and the systems that facilitate it
-I do not contribute to or aid those systems
-I buy every game that I ever pirate
-Within these parameters, my pirating a game is moral and harmless.
This is something I agree with entirely. I can go out and buy a pair of jeans for £100 or so, and what effort was put in place to be able to wear these jeans? One designer, maybe two who just tweak the de-facto design a little with some different stitching and a nice label. Add in the manufacture process and maybe 5 or 6 peeps maybe can be attributed to producing the jeans, as part of a much larger corporation. Do I grudge buying these jeans? Hell no.
So why is it that people can't see past their noses and see that games are no different to any other commercial item. Regardless of what we think of their value, they are given that value by the seller. If we don't like, then simply do not buy. Don't go raiding the shops because we do not like.
Knock yourself out matey, go for it.
Seriously? It passes your moral logic gates?
So you want me to get all frustrated because of your moral beliefs? Aint going to happen unfortunately. I still stand by what I said, I can't expect everyone to think like me, nor would I want them to. If you want to pirate, that's your cup of char, and it serves you well to do so, then that's up to you. I have stated on numerous occassions now why I would disagree, now that I am walking away from the argument, I am wrong??
If that was indeed the truth, then why would it not?
The problem is that you would appear to be a very, very rare beasty indeed.... and that you obtained them from an open system that can be abused by other less decent people. While YOU may be beyond reproach... others aren't.
You know... part of me just wants to scream "Just ****ing buy it you *****! You'd probably spend the same amount getting pissed on a night out so what's the damned difference"?
...but that would be rude
The thing is, your beliefs don't seem grounded in reason. Your explanation of why piracy is wrong boils down to "pirates need to grow up and realise that there is no such thing as a free ticket in life". You don't seem to be able to justify your belief that try-and-buy piracy is wrong - when pressed, you just retreat from the issue.
I'm not set in my beliefs, you understand. I come here to have them challenged, and until recently, that's precisely what was happening. Through the last few pages of this thread I've refined my moral intuitions on piracy. Now, however, you're telling me they're wrong but failing to quantify why. I can live with it, it's just a bit frustrating really. I want to know why you believe what you do, because I'm open to the possibility that you're right and I'm wrong.
I don't know about all of y'all, but I just wait for the next Steam sale.
5 Bucks for Civ IV...Thankyouplease
3 Bucks for FEAR....I'll take that
10 Bucks for borderlands DLC...Ching
2 Bucks for TF2...MMMM
You get the idea.
I guess you all use those pound things I keep hearing about rather than greenbacks......
What nut decided to name their cash after a unit of weight?
For him, and many others, the choice is between:
1. not copying and not buying
2. copying and buying if you like it
Option 2 goes against your moral values, but option 1 will never put money into the pockets of artists. While you and stuartb might value your morals above the pockets of artists, the rest of us here are more interested in getting the artists paid.
There's a group 2 that choses between:
1. not copying and not buying
2. copying and not buying
While 2 may be morally wrong, neither of these options would have gotten the artists paid, so getting morally outraged is not going to help one way or the other.
In conclusion: your moral outrage will not fix the problems with group 2, but it might kill off group 1, the only one of the two who gets money into the pockets of artists. Why do you place your morals above the interests of the artists that created the works?
So me.. who always actually buys the game is not interested in putting money in the artist's pockets? Oh.. OK.
Your entire argument does however, hinge around the hypothesis that there's this silent majority that download illegal games and then go on to buy them. I'd like to see the proof of this, as it would be very easy for people who DON'T buy the games to just hide behind this argument.
Unless you can provide proof... please stop using this as a valid argument.
At least there's no denying that me actually buying games with money helps the games industry. Your argument is an unproven theory that is actually (and conveniently) unmeasurable.
Separate names with a comma.