PC Gaming Is Dying

[Limewater]

Take a step back, and ask "Why are they upset?". People don't just get upset at something for no reason, you know.

That's my whole point. They get upset because people are violating their copyrights. That's what the guy was saying. He doesn't think he's lost a lot of money due to piracy, but he feels violated due to piracy.

[aaron]

oh my god, i agree with inazuma.

i don't think he was really upset that they violated his copyright, i feel like he was upset that they cost him a potential $0.99 download on itunes.

[Inazuma]

Take a step back, and ask "Why are they upset?". People don't just get upset at something for no reason, you know.

That's my whole point. They get upset because people are violating their copyrights. That's why the guy was saying. He doesn't think he's lost a lot of money due to piracy, but he feels violated due to piracy.

Yeah, but besides money, what's the problem? I can't think of anything else that's negative.

I can think of positive things though. Someone who pirates a PC game, and ends up really liking it may later decide to go and buy it. They may talk about the game to their friends, and the friends may end up buying it. Piracy can be a form of free advertising.

[Limewater]

Yeah, but besides money, what's the problem? I can't think of anything else that's negative.

But the guy is upset. He feels violated. His feelings are hurt by people pirating his music. Why does this not count?

[Limewater]

i don't think he was really upset that they violated his copyright, i feel like he was upset that they cost him a potential $0.99 download on itunes.

Last year I had my identity stolen (I mean, copied) and fraudulent charges were placed on my credit card. My credit card company took care of it. It didn't cost me a dime, but I was upset by it and felt violated.

[aaron]

i don't think he was really upset that they violated his copyright, i feel like he was upset that they cost him a potential $0.99 download on itunes.

Last year I had my identity stolen (I mean, copied) and fraudulent charges were placed on my credit card. My credit card company took care of it. It didn't cost me a dime, but I was upset by it and felt violated.

i'm not trying to assume anything about you here so don't take this personally, but i don't think i would feel violated by something like that because i don't attach any form of my identity (i.e. "who i am") to my bank account, my possessions, or anything else material.

[Limewater]

i'm not trying to assume anything about you here so don't take this personally, but i don't think i would feel violated by something like that because i don't attach any form of my identity (i.e. "who i am") to my bank account, my possessions, or anything else material.

I don't either. I was upset and felt violated because someone claimed to be me in order to commit a crime, and that meant that I had to be extra vigilant about all of my financial transactions and follow all of my statements and be paranoid for months afterward in case it happened again. I also had to deal with the inconvenience of having fraud alerts on all of my accounts for the next several months. It wasn't some personal mushy namby-pamby crap, but thanks for the assumption. There are a lot more shitty practical matters related to it than you think.

I even know who did it. If the police were worth anything, the guy would have been in serious trouble. As it happened, they didn't even take my police report.

Also, "I'm not trying to assume anything about you here, so don't take this personally, but here is a personal judgement I'm going to make about you."

[aaron]

i'm not trying to assume anything about you here so don't take this personally, but i don't think i would feel violated by something like that because i don't attach any form of my identity (i.e. "who i am") to my bank account, my possessions, or anything else material.

I don't either. I was upset and felt violated because someone claimed to be me in order to commit a crime, and that meant that I had to be extra vigilant about all of my financial transactions and follow all of my statements and be paranoid for months afterward in case it happened again. I also had to deal with the inconvenience of having fraud alerts on all of my accounts for the next several months. It wasn't some personal mushy namby-pamby crap, but thanks for the assumption. There are a lot more shitty practical matters related to it than you think.

I even know who did it. If the police were worth anything, the guy would have been in serious trouble. As it happened, they didn't even take my police report.

Also, "I'm not trying to assume anything about you here, so don't take this personally, but here is a personal judgement I'm going to make about you."

well, that's how it read in your abbreviated explanation a few posts up. it's not like thomas dolby has to go through anything like you went through, so how does his feeling violated and your feeling violated correlate? it's two completely different feelings using the same word. you felt violated due to the added work, stress, and excess inconvenience attached to someone stealing your identity; thomas dolby feels violated because someone, somewhere, downloaded his music illegally. thomas dolby obviously felt violated because someone had effectively "stolen" something from him that he obviously identified with on a very personal level, and to have his creations downloaded illegally made him feel violated. you said you felt violated when someone stole your identity, but not because you poured your heart and soul into your credit score or took a serious personal and emotional interest in your bank account, you were just upset because it created a hassle for you.

(edited to remove unnecessary name-calling).

[Inazuma]

Yeah, but besides money, what's the problem? I can't think of anything else that's negative.

But the guy is upset. He feels violated. His feelings are hurt by people pirating his music. Why does this not count?

That doesn't count. If it did count, I could get anything banned by simply saying that it upsets me and hurts my feelings.

"I want you to ban all dairy products."
"Why? Because some people can't handle lactose?"
"Nope."
"Because dairy farms are run poorly and don't properly care for the animals?"
"Nope."
"Then why? Tell me why all dairy products should be banned and I'll consider it."
"No reason. It just upsets me."
"And why does it upset you?"
"It just does. Isn't that good enough?"
"..."

See how silly that sounds?

The reason these people feel violated is because they don't like losing money. That's a perfectly good reason, and that's the reason why copyright infringement can be a bad thing.

[Limewater]

That doesn't count. If it did count, I could get anything banned by simply saying that it upsets me and hurts my feelings.

Great! Now I don't have to feel bad when I point and laugh at folks with Downs Syndrome and call them "retards."

"I want you to ban all dairy products."
"Why? Because some people can't handle lactose?"
"Nope."
"Because dairy farms are run poorly and don't properly care for the animals?"
"Nope."
"Then why? Tell me why all dairy products should be banned and I'll consider it."
"No reason. It just upsets me."
"And why does it upset you?"
"It just does. Isn't that good enough?"
"..."

See how silly that sounds?

Yes, it sounds silly. You don't have the power to ban anything. Also, situations like this are why I don't believe in results-based morality, like the system you assume and are advocating.

The reason these people feel violated is because they don't like losing money. That's a perfectly good reason, and that's the reason why copyright infringement can be a bad thing.

They also don't like losing control over their intellectual property, or having their rights violated. If someone works for years and puts his heart and soul into creating something, it shouldn't be too surprising if control of his creation is taken from him.

For example, Allan Moore created Watchmen, though DC still owns the rights in a situation that surprised him years ago. He was angry about the film version. He didn't want it made, and he didn't want to receive any money from it. This wasn't a guy who was angry over lost profits. This was a guy angry over people doing something with his creation that he did not want them to do, and, had he received the rights to his work when he expected to, could have prevented. And that's not even a copyright infringement.