Single Avast Pro license used by 744,651 pirates

[Erik_Twice]

No, but others have used your EXACT reasoning to do so.

"That someone else claims that piracy does not support the creator is not my concern, because it's not my claim and I don't agree with it."

Again, that's not my "exact reasoning" because you keep changing my words.

And it's not my concern that other are wrong. I can be right or wrong but not because someone else is.

If that's true, then you need to explain what the gap is. How does buying a used game support the creators? They don't get any of that money at all.

First of all, I don't need to explain what the gap is, you are the one who modified my statement so that such gap appears, you are the one who must prove that piracy and used games are identical.

Even then, if there's no such logical gap then both piracy and used games are morally wrong. You only add used games to the pile of wrong not magically make piracy right!

Anyways,you can't buy someone's game if they didn't buy it in the first place. So "they don't get any money at all" is simply false. When you buy something, it's now yours, you own it. If you sell it again, you no longuer own it and you no longuer benefit from it. It doesn't matter how many hands have it, the benefit of owning the item (Which is what was sold) is the same.

Also, if you think that used games do not support the creators, then you should oppose them unless you think that a model where artists are not paid for their work is sustainable. In fact, such model would also apply to patents and engineering so I very much don't think it's sustainable.

Actually, if you take a look at how our patent system affects software developers, it's how we treat patents that isn't sustainable.[/quote]
What you claim and what I say are unrelated. In fact, you say it "It's not X what is bad, Y is!".

I claimed that if you think that artists should not be payed for their work then engineers shouldn't either.

I never spoke a word about "our patent system" and if it's good or bad. I just said that we need a such a system because without it we won't have engineers or artists or what have you and that sucks.

[flamepanther]

"That someone else claims that piracy does not support the creator is not my concern, because it's not my claim and I don't agree with it."

Again, that's not my "exact reasoning" because you keep changing my words.[/quote]The "reasoning" isn't the exact words. The reasoning is the logical formula you use to support your position. If X is bad because it gives one person goods or services without providing reciprocal benefit to the person responsible for said goods or benefits--and y also gives one person the same goods or services without providing that same reciprocal benefit, then either y is also bad, or there is another factor that hasn't been considered.

And it's not my concern that other are wrong. I can be right or wrong but not because someone else is.

You're not right or wrong because someone else is. However, if the logic is sound, then it should be valid for anything that meets the same criteria.

If that's true, then you need to explain what the gap is. How does buying a used game support the creators? They don't get any of that money at all.

First of all, I don't need to explain what the gap is, you are the one who modified my statement so that such gap appears, you are the one who must prove that piracy and used games are identical.[/quote]In both cases, the first user pays the publisher or developer for the product. In both cases, the publisher and developer receive absolutely no money from any subsequent users. The only difference is how efficiently others can benefit without paying the developer.

Even then, if there's no such logical gap then both piracy and used games are morally wrong. You only add used games to the pile of wrong not magically make piracy right!

That is correct, assuming that piracy is always morally wrong, or that any moral wrongness in piracy is for the specific reason you've said it is.

Anyways,you can't buy someone's game if they didn't buy it in the first place.

Unless the person selling the game stole it. Furthermore, it's just as likely that the person you might copy something from bought their original copy as well.

So "they don't get any money at all" is simply false.

They get no money at all from the used sale, which the developer will equate to a lost new sale if used was not an option. The money from the original sale is already a done deal. You're not contributing to it by buying it again. So too with an illegal copy of a legitimately purchased game.

When you buy something, it's now yours, you own it.

So why can't I copy it and spew it all over bittorrent then? Or copy it to blank media which I also own?

If you sell it again, you no longuer own it and you no longuer benefit from it.

Correction: you already benefited from it. If you're selling it, then presumably you've got all the use you want out of it and wouldn't be using it again, even if you made a copy instead. If person a gets their full use out of it and passes it to person B who gets their full use out of it and passes it to person C who gets their full use out of it, and so on I think you should get the idea.

It doesn't matter how many hands have it, the benefit of owning the item (Which is what was sold) is the same.

Not to the developer it isn't.

Also, if you think that used games do not support the creators, then you should oppose them unless you think that a model where artists are not paid for their work is sustainable.

Or unless I think sometimes it's OK under limited circumstances to not pay when it doesn't equate to a lost sale for the artist?

Actually, if you take a look at how our patent system affects software developers, it's how we treat patents that isn't sustainable.

What you claim and what I say are unrelated. In fact, you say it "It's not X what is bad, Y is!".

You said:

In fact, such model would also apply to patents and engineering so I very much don't think it's sustainable.

The patent war being waged between software companies right now, as well as by patent squatters who periodically sue most of the major console manufacturers, is already not sustainable. If the existing system is not sustainable, then that's not good grounds for attacking some other model. It's also directly related to what you said.

Also, we already have a system where artists often don't get paid for their work. It should be criminal that most RIAA record labels pay their artists only pennies for each album sold. The same thing frequently happens to writers, game developers, and so on. When even a legitimate new sale does not even really support an artist, and the artists keep doing their work anyway, how is piracy necessarily any worse? This is why I make an effort to support "indie" artists that I like. At least there I know they will actually get a decent percentage of the money I spend. Supporting the CEO of some big publisher really doesn't seem like a moral imperative to me. Why should it?

Incidentally, there's a growing movement that's been showing that sometimes a donation-based model [/b]can[/b] be sustainable.

[Erik_Twice]

The "reasoning" isn't the exact words. The reasoning is the logical formula you use to support your position.

And the formula doesn't change if you change the words? By that logic 2+2= 4 is the same as 3+5=4 because the "formula" is the same.

Anyways, don't look for a justification for putting words in my mouth that I never said. Don't change what I say and then expect me to accept your strawman.

In both cases, the publisher and developer receive absolutely no money from any subsequent users.

But you are not charging per user. You are charging for the ownership of a commodity not for the use of such.

So why can't I copy it and spew it all over bittorrent then? Or copy it to blank media which I also own?

You can't do the first one because you own the commodity not the distribution rights to the intelectual property of such commodity.

The later is something you should be able to do.

]Correction: you already benefited from it. If you're selling it, then presumably you've got all the use you want out of it and wouldn't be using it again, even if you made a copy instead.

There's no "already benefited from it". The benefit is owning it, even if you use it to crap on it. What the sell you is the property, not the enjoyment or whatever you want it for. This is basic economics, not rocket science.

Again:
What you buy is the ownership of the commodity.

It should be criminal that most RIAA record labels pay their artists only pennies for each album sold.

The artists were the one who accepted the contract in the first place. Those evil record labels! How do they dare to offer a luxury that you can refuse if you don't like?

Incidentally, there's a growing movement that's been showing that sometimes a donation-based model can be sustainable.

And who are you to tell me how I should sell my work? If the artist chose to publish their work and charge for it buy it or not but don't tell them how they must sell their work.

It's like saying "No, you are not charging me 40$, you are charging me 30$ because I say so!". If the so wanted a model based on donations they can do it. That doesn't mean that I can't charge for my work.

Would you like to have your bread depend on donations? I wouldn't.

And again:

WHAT YOU BUY IS THE OWNERSHIP OF A COMMODITY.

[YoshiEgg25]

GODDAMMIT YOU GUYS.

This is why we can't have nice threads.

[jfrost]

GODDAMMIT YOU GUYS.

This is why we can't have nice threads.

What? Two people are discussing, therefore the thread is ruined? And this is not even a particularly heated discussion, seriously.

[flamepanther]

There's no "already benefited from it". The benefit is owning it, even if you use it to crap on it. What the sell you is the property, not the enjoyment or whatever you want it for. This is basic economics, not rocket science.

Copyright is a lot weirder than "basic economics". That much should be obvious when you're starting with a scenario where supply is hypothetically infinite but price does not drop to zero or the lowest price possible (THAT would be "basic" supply and demand).

In any case, your original argument was that if a person pirates something, they receive the benefit of that thing without any return going to the people responsible for creating it. If the "benefit" is the physical object, then your original point is wrong. If a person copies an NES cartridge's ROM data (from a cartridge he does not own) and keeps it around for use in an emulator, he does not receive the "benefit" of owning the physical NES cartridge without paying for it. If piracy is wrong, it cannot be for the specific reasons you've stated--either that or you should rethink what the "benifit" of buying copyrighted media is in some way that is consistent and does not involve switching definitions around arbitrarily.

I'm not saying that piracy is always, usually, or even necessarily ever right. I'm saying the realities behind it are significantly more complicated than the straw man arguments of either side. Any time someone tries to reduce things to "look its' simple" terms, it's easy to find some point where those simple terms break down and don't work anymore.

[Erik_Twice]

If the "benefit" is the physical object, then your original point is wrong.

No, it's not the physical object. It's both the physical object that contains the copy of the work of art and the copy of such work itself.

[flamepanther]

No, it's not the physical object. It's both the physical object that contains the copy of the work of art and the copy of such work itself.

Your exact words were: "What you buy is the ownership of the commodity." And before that "What the sell you is the property, not the enjoyment or whatever you want it for." Please note that while I added bold for emphasis, I did not change any of your words. In almost all cases, that "whatever you want it for" is the copyrighted work the object contains.

It ought to be a given that muddling together the ideas of "physical commodity" and "legally protected idea" isn't remotely simple--which would be why we have so many complicated nuances to our copyright laws. If it could really be so simple, we wouldn't have so many constantly changing rules about what constitutes fair use, for example.

[Erik_Twice]

In almost all cases, that "whatever you want it for" is the copyrighted work the object contains.

What I mean is that you own both the physical object and the work contained. The physical object is yours.

If you buy a game that comes with a case you also own the case while if you buy it online you will own the copy of the work but no case.

[aaron]

In almost all cases, that "whatever you want it for" is the copyrighted work the object contains.

What I mean is that you own both the physical object and the work contained. The physical object is yours.

If you buy a game that comes with a case you also own the case while if you buy it online you will own the copy of the work but no case.

nah, you don't own the work contained, you're merely licensing the use of it for yourself. this is fact.

i keep trying to reread this thread but all i se is a bunch of BUT's.