Fair enough... kids are expensive as hell...
Did you miss the part where Jiarn includes having that thing for two years while promising to buy it for Y dollars in the event the publisher lowers the price? That's not the same thing as acquiring something during a clearance sale.
Incorrect, simply because the decision of a company to lower the price is in part also determined by the level of it's first-run sales. If they know that a ton of people pirated their games, they're not going to lower their prices in the forlorn hope that these people who would rather steal than pay the first-run price or wait for the lower clearance price are ever going to buy their games. This also effects the ability of the company to make money back in the same reasonable time period as they are expected to pay their own expenses back.
There's the conversation of the developer feeling he/they did not get paid for the amount of work they put in, and I can appreciate that. Which is why I'm glad when a game I enjoy does well in it's inital months and if I had the kind of income that would allow those kinds of purchases I would gladly take them at full price. I don't wait for the discounted price just because "I can" because if that was the case, I just would never pay at all.
There is. Most people after playing the game for a couple months won't bother to actually buy it.
Seeing as how you refuse to debunk any of my points, (Ex: according to your stance, borrowing the game from someone till you purchased it later at discount = stealing) it really does seem like you're the one going "la la la". I've responded to every point instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong" as you seem to be doing. Sorry to hear you no longer wish to attempt to debate.
You're an ignorant fool, and haven't really addressed anything.
If there is a GPL or CC license on the work (or the artist said it was okay via ToU or some such), then no.
Well Jiarn, I think pirating and borrowing from a friend are two different things. At least how I see it.
Well that's the oddest definition of stealing i ever heard...
Like i said, under Jiarn's conditions first-run sales would be the same either way... your argument takes into account the possibility that he's lying to himself or us and that he'd actually buy it at a higher price...
Once again with the equating a virtually limitless product with a physical one that's subjected to scarcity... 500 years ago there was no concept of IP even... while scarce resources has been with us forever...Piotyr said:
Depends on how long ago the artist was alive... and if it was before Steamboat Willie...
Is the artist selling digital prints of his work?
It does not really matter, if it is for sale digitally or not. If Pablo Picaso was alive now, painted a masterpiece, it is sitting in a gallery for sale, and some one gets a good digital image out. Since the art has not been sold, and it is out on the internet, the artist has the potential for losing profit on the sale.
Bullshit. Our enconomy is based on scarcity of anything, be it a physical object, manual labor, expertise, artistic talent, or anything that is limited in supply. Even though some ideas can be readily mass produced once they are implemented, new ideas are still a limited commodity, and the people who not only are capable of implementing those ideas, and have the time, inclination and resources to do so are even rarer.
Strawman argument. We're talking about movies and games. The only people whose quality of life will be directly impacted by these works is the artists, if they can manage to sell their work.
It's really not that simple. There are many ways they could potentially lose money on the situation.
Again, bullshit. Public perception also plays a role here. I'll admit that more people talking about the awesome game they're playing is actually likely to increase the perceived value of the game in question, but at the same time that also decreases the perceived value of the game on sale if it doesn't get fresh buzz from people playing it for the first time when the price drop hits. My point is that there are very real economic differences between gamers playing a pirated version of a new game, and playing a discount copy legitimately bought a year later (or even a few months later. I bough L4D2 for $30, legit, a mere two weeks after it came out).
Well, except for the whole repspecting another person's property angle. Yeah, I know that people are quick to dismiss the value of ideas and easily reproducible content, but seriously. The creators of the work have made it clear what price they're offering their game for, and pirating the game/movie/book/etc is giving them a big "screw you!" and taking it anyway. It doesn't matter if you pay later when it's gone down in price, the creator is offering it now for a higher price because that's the premium for owning it now. That's what the extra cost is paying for, early access.
No, you wouldn't because Mark Twain already had his chance to sell his work. Now, we could get into a very interesting argument over if copyright lasts too long (and, yes, it does), but that shouldn't matter for NEW works. We've been talking about pirating games when they're first introduced. Bringing up works that have had their copyright expired, or should have, is a straw-man argument.
Oh for goodness sakes. Yes, many publishers think that used sales are ruining their business. Book companies have been shouting this for longer than video game makers. However, Amazon will tell you that used book sales increase the sales of new books. Gamestop will tell you that 80% of trade-in games go towards new-game purchases.
Still waiting for a reply to this one. If money is all we're talking about here, does that make it acceptable to take merchandise for less than the seller would agree to, as long as you "pay" more for the item than it cost to get on the shelf, and you're not preventing any other hypothetical sales?
No, they're not getting money from you at that point, but neither does your family member have access to the game. That's a pretty big distinction. With borrowing, only one copy of the game is shared. With piracy, an unlimited number of copies get played at the same time.
Bullshit! Heraldry and other forms of identification has been around for at least that long. Try going back several hundred years and wearing a Scottish tartan of another clan and see how they take to your explanation that IP doesn't exist, and that physical scarcity is the only factor.
)
There are publishers that have made it absolutely clear that they consider used game sales to be the same as piracy, but I don't think that applies to all publishers, and certainly not to all developers.So......... that brings a new question that just pop in my head.
If a person keep trading old stuff and buy use games, does the industry consider these people pirates? since the company who made the game will never see a dime from these customer base? (I use to do that for a long time since used games are cheaper, but now I can actually afford new games
It's not! The company, at the end of the day, will get exactly the same amount of money from Jiarn whether he pirates or not. Therefore, the issue is not financial but moral.
I'll quote myself:
Yeah, I cut that out because it was a steaming pile of crap. "Selling one couple a sub-prime mortgage won't harm anyone, a single defaulted loan won't make much of a difference. It's all those other banks making bad investments that caused the recession."
They still lost the difference of the value of the game when the pirate copies the game till the time he "gets around to paying for it."
