So just because no one else has questioned you means you are right on the point? I'm not trying to be offensive here but thats very arrogant of you. Common sense changes from person to person, city to city, country to country, religion to religion, etc. One could argue (though I won't because its not worth doing the research for a forum debate) that gaming has only become so popular do to the increased ease of obtaining games when PC games first hit the web.
So you're arguing if piracy was eliminated, sales would NOT increase? If that's honestly what you're arguing, then your view of society and economics is so radically different than mine that there's no point in this conversation. I believe we are a consumer-driven society (most everyone I've ever discussed economics with concurs), consumers will consume. Taking away free things will push them elsewhere, usually in the same industry. Most people won't entirely give up hobbies simply because it stops being free. Will some? Yes.
My point was that you thought it was selfish to pirate because no money goes to the developer. Its the exact same for a used game sale, no money goes to the developer. How is the first selfish but the second not so? Just because you haven't broken any laws? Or you paid for the used game rather then getting it for free?
But NOT the exact same thing, as I explained. Buying a used game can prevent someone else from buying that used game (by pushing up its price). If you buy a used game, you have to pay more than another competitor. If you didn't buy it, the price would be lower and someone else may rethink their retail purchase. That does not happen with piracy. It can also motivate others to buy the game in the first place (knowing they can sell it). My family used to run several rental stores, they wouldn't have a chance now. Part of that is because it's easier to buy and sell the goods if you so choose.
I agree here, but at the same time, some people are on a really tight budget and 5 dollars can feed them dinner.
There are plenty of free games to play. Poverty is not a justification for stealing entertainment. Most people can't even argue from that angle either.
You are failing to see that piracy has a ripple effect as well. A pirate may download a game and like it so much that they go buy it. Or alternatively they could recommend the game to there friends (some who will not be pirates themselves) and those friends may go out and buy the game. Maybe you just hadn't thought about that angle at all?
In all my experience, that rarely happens (unless it's required to play online and they really want to). Of course there's always exceptions. PC games continue to drop year after year while piracy increases. I wouldn't call this a coincidence, would you?
Many artists claim that piracy has brought them new fans, and with new fans comes more sales. If piracy was not an option those people may never have become a fan of an artist and that artist would never have gotten a sale from them.
They can give their stuff away for free if they want to. I'm almost shocked this is used as some kind of justification for piracy.
ut because no data exists it is impossible to say for sure. Its currently an unknown, a variable. Even though the chance is small that there would be no difference in sales, not even one more sale, there is still a chance. Essentially this situation is a Schrödinger's cat. It exist in a state of both affecting and not affecting sales at the same time. Only when we can open the box (in this case do a study under the correct conditions) will we know for sure.
Most science, including peer reviewed data, has exceptions, almost always. It's rarely absolutely certain. Yet we take certain implications, certain theories as truth, for the sake of research, law, and ethical judgment, because there's no reason to believe otherwise. I've never seen any convincing case that if the millions of pirates could no longer pirate, that at least some fraction of them wouldn't purchase the goods. Is there any reason on earth to believe that? I believe you're a real human being, and you the same of me, but neither of us can be certain. There are just some basic truths we accept without explicit, irrefutable proof buried within a study. I have friends that admit as much (they would buy the games if forced to), and they alone prove the theory. And I'm sure there's millions of others on the same boat.
There will never be an accurate study on this. It is essentially impossible unless we can have mind-reading and future-telling devices. This is why you're using the lack of data as an argument - you know there never will be good data.
I can't fathom why you believe my ideas on copyright and infringement are outdated. You linked a 1985 court ruling that showed piracy is not 'stolen property' (which I never disputed). I suggest you take a look at the direction rulings are going now, as well as the laws. Look at a more recent law (1998), the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf) that explicitly makes it illegal to bypass DRM. Or (1997) No Electronic Theft Act (
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm). A ruling from 1985, before the internet and mass digital reproduction took off, is outdated. Period.
I have heard your 'simple and tired argument' a hundred times over as well.
I hate to sound condescending (if you hadn't noticed, I feel great disdain for the defense of what I see as immoral and selfish) but it seems you simply glossed over my most important points. Several years down the line, these laws will more coincide with what I'm saying, as people's well-being and economics become more and more dependent on digital distribution. You're trying to justify piracy as a whole, when if the vast majority of the time we look at individual cases, we will see them as what they are - selfish and unethical, for the users' convenience. The sad thing is, these laws shouldn't even need to exist. The moral and ethical burden is on the individual.
