In real life it is often up to one person or a small group to decide if it is cool or not.
That's true, but it is still only their opinion in the end, and not fact, regardless of how many people share the same opinion. I know what you mean, however.
I never said that you should adjust your opinion, nor did I say anything about me thinking swastikas are cool.
then there's certainly nothing cool about you.
Or so you think. It's all about opinions, and nothing more. Of course, Microsoft's opinion is what matters when it comes to bans on Xbox live.
That actually sounds like a good way to run an online community.
As someone who doesn't really get offended by mere words or pictures and thinks that people need to toughen up, I disagree. But... I don't really care too much. If they want to do this, fine.
That was a nice straw man argument. I never said anything about me thinking that it's cool. I merely meant to imply that one person cannot decide how 'cool' or 'entertaining' something is for everyone else. I also never said that the Xbox was a 'democracy'.
Because it's not losing belief in something, it's losing a legal right - according to copyright law.
Yes, and I fail to see how that hurts them. Why should they have this 'right', exactly? How does it hurt them if they don't have it?
If stripping away this 'right' that you say they have will stop the injustices done to pirates, then I believe that it's worth it. People have had plenty of questionable rights in and past, and they have were weeded out.
Well how do you improve it then, what exactly are you suggesting needs to be improved?
Get rid of artificial currency, artificial scarcity, copyright law, and planned obsolescence for starters.
But again, my point isn't to argue about what system should be used next, but to make people realize that the current one is broken and that pirates logically aren't hurting anyone.
What are you talking about? You haven't lost the ability to think. Think all you like.
You said (not in that post):
Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.
I fail to see how losing the ability to believe in something (believe that they have the exclusive right to control the distribution of their digital media) can harm you. Can you explain that?
Improved? But you said it was fundamentally broken, you said it was a problem of our capitalist society. A society you choose to be a part of because there is no superior alternative available.
Yes, improved. I said nothing about a perfect solution. Yes, broken. Broken as in highly flawed (alright, wrong wording there).
Yes, there's currently no place in the world which has a superior system in place. Or at least, there's currently no supported solutions that are superior.
That's not what you said above. You said that any society that does not utilize artificial currency and has people that work because they love their profession couldn't work. I asked you what you base that off of. I fail to see how I misinterpreted you there.
Fact is such a society does not work hence the reason we have the current system, it's the best available.
You base this off of what, exactly? Has a legitimate resource-based society actually been implemented before? Or are you just speculated based on things such as "incentive"? I gave a very, very simple answer. There are a number of different ways such a system could work (not that all of them would work), so merely claiming that a very wide range of ideas doesn't work is a bit hasty.
Unless people find value in the physical copy, yes (some people find value in the original). It really depends on the person.
You are right that you're not taking away anything from the artist but because there is a need for money you are possibly preventing any more original works to be created.
You're right, and they're only hurting themselves. If they want to see the artist produce more content in this current system, pay them.
If you want more art, games, music, movies, you can't stop contributing to the cause.
As I've said time and time again, you absolutely cannot be deprived of something that you never even had. It is logically impossible. Even if it were possible, this would mean that everyone who merely warned others of bad products has deprived others of a potential sale.
If you can name or describe any of those almost infinite ideas, please do.
The thing is, I do not need to. Logically, there are an almost infinite amount of systems that one could come up with. Now, not all of them would work, but there's too many of them to simply reduce that number down to two possible systems.
Very few people are, will be, or can be motivated simply by love of their profession. Most people hate their jobs and hate working period. Until you can guarantee with absolute certainty that there will be just enough or an excess of farmers, road builders, factory workers, etc. to provide the basics for modern human society, you can keep your utopia far away from me.
It's not a utopia, as that implies perfection. It's merely a society without money.
Machines would replace people in many of the tedious, simple jobs (something that is already possible but neglected in order to "save jobs").
Also, you can't guarantee anything with absolute certainty (heh), especially something as complex and illogical as human behavior.
The love of their profession would be what motivates someone. However, while an artificial currency would no longer exist, the rest of society wouldn't just stand by and watch as someone leaches off of their work and contributes nothing.
No, but it does make the discussion quite pointless.
No, it doesn't. My points that the current system is broken would remain true, and other people may start to realize that it is true so that they can come up with a better alternative (maybe). It's not completely pointless.
That's not a logical argument at all. When you produce something, no one has an obligation to purchase it.
Apparently they do, since if they don't, they've 'deprived' (not really, since they didn't have it in the first place) the author of a potential sale, or potential profit. The pirate may have the product, but again, that doesn't hurt the artist because copying something doesn't alone deprive anyone of anything, and in order to deprive someone of something, they must logically have it in the first place.
take it that's your real problem here and we're all evil because we find money useful as an efficient means of exchange between goods, services, and our time.
It ultimately makes us hurt others (corruption through bribery, desire to get more, and pointless wars fought ultimately for profit), the environment (money being treated as more important than the environment, which is something that happens often), other animals (if it's profitable to treat them cruelly, it will happen unless someone is there to stop them). It only provides incentive because people have already been indoctrinated to believe that money is the only thing they should work for.
You can think that as much as you like, you haven't lost that ability at all.
Sorry, but I still really don't understand how losing the ability to think something harms someone. Can you explain that to me?
Doubt all you want, you certainly haven't contributed anything to disprove it.
You're right, but it hasn't been disproved, either, so let's leave it at that.
You can whine about how it's not perfect but nothing is perfect.
The "don't fix it if it isn't completely broken" mentality ensures that nothing will get done. If there is a chance that something could be improved, it should be taken, or at least tried.
Such a thing is not granted to you by the law so of course you haven't lost anything.
I've lost my ability to think that I can control all of the money in the world. Whether that was at any point granted to me by the law is irrelevant, because we are apparently talking about ideas instead of actual tangible harm now.
No but it might be that it is the best possible solution.
Against an almost infinite number of possible solutions, I really doubt that.
If this game were to be pirated 5% of the time (random figure pulled out of my arse, but I really think its on the low side), and no action were taken against that act, what proportion of the 95% who spent $45 on the game would think 'hey, those guys are getting the same game as me but for free, and theres nothing being done about it - why am I spending my money?'
Again, please understand my argument. Whether the pirates would have bought the product or not is irrelevant. The amount of people who pirate something is also irrelevant.
My argument revolves around the idea that claiming that you can harm someone by stealing something that doesn't exist (potential profit) doesn't make sense. Not to mention that you're also including everyone who merely decided not to buy the product.
This isn't friends telling friends not to purchase, this is about the wrong actions having no consequence and the public seeing that.
But the thing is that both practices can negatively harm sales, and that merely not paying someone whilst not using up any of their time or resources doesn't hurt them. It must be a combination of those three conditions, which piracy is.
The problem of people not working because of a lack of money lies in the system itself, because logically pirates aren't doing any harm. Pirates are only harming themselves if they continue to pirate media that they enjoy and the artists no longer have the funds to continue producing any more.
Also, note that I think it's a good thing if someone decides to reward an artist for their effort. I just believe that equating piracy to theft or harm is ridiculous.
It's interesting to consider that concept: "infinite supply". So far as I can tell, there isn't an infinite supply of resources to provide to people in order for them to work on video games (or films, music, theatre, etc.).
Obviously, I am speaking of the digital media itself and not of people who produce it.
How do you define harm?
If someone steals something from someone else (as in, the other person was actually deprived of something that they originally owned), the other person is harmed.
If someone physically harms someone, obviously the other person was harmed.
If someone uses up someones time with promises of payment but then decides not to pay them, that person was harmed. Pirates differ from this because they use their own time and resources to copy data.
Producers of content feel harmed when they don't receive what they feel is just reward for their efforts.
So, we should disallow people from choosing whether or not to buy a product or disallow people from telling others not to buy a product because it could hurt sales?
Just like you'd feel harmed if your employer decided to pay you less than you'd agreed to work for them for.
The difference here is clear. Pirates, again, use their own time and resources to copy the data, not interacting with the artists at all (or depriving them of anything).
In this scenario, someone was promised a certain amount of money and used their time to work to get it. They didn't get it, and so they wasted their time.
So when people pirate it, that "social contract" has been violated.
Merely violating a social contract by itself doesn't hurt someone. In order for it to be harmful, you have to either deprive someone of something, use their time, or use their resources.
Also, be aware that I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to pay artists, just that piracy can't logically be equated to stealing.
I wouldn't be happy because they've wasted my time. Time is not in an infinite quantity, and pirates do not use up the time of the original artists because they use their own time and resources to copy data.
But, pirates aren't using any of their time. They use their own time and resources to copy the data that the artist originally created.
If you argue that the artist should be paid for the time that they originally put into the product, then you should blame everyone who merely decided not to buy the product, not just pirates. Neither groups granted the author money.
Generalize your dumb argument and imagine that nobody pays for ANY of these goods.
Yes, what would happen? There wouldn't be anymore of those goods. Whose fault would that be? The people who didn't pay for those goods. Who did they hurt? Only themselves. The act of not paying someone money whilst also not using up any of their time or resources does no damage to them.
On a side note, your dumb argument implies that doctors should work for free (well, if you don't pay the doctor you aren't really stealing from you, are you?), architects too, engineers, software developers, teachers, etc. Really?
As I have already pointed out, you used up their time with promises of payment, but then didn't pay them. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy data.
Is that what you think is what drives the big game releases?
If you think that all game developers that work in large companies do not enjoy developing games, then I believe that you are wrong. Sure, some of them are doing it for the money, but I suspect that that number if not very large. From what I hear, working in a large game developing studio is very hectic, to say the least. These are the types of developers that we can stand to lose.
As a software developer, I can say I enjoy some parts of the development process, but I would never, ever spend 8 hours per day on it if I didn't get paid for it.
Why is that? Is it because you need to have money to live in the current system? There are actually plenty of developers who work on software in their spare time. Very talented ones.
Would you still be a software developer if you lived in a system where money was not required?
I used to think a bit like you (although not as extremely) but I've come to realise that proposing to tear down a system for which you have no alternative is both immature and irresponsible.
It's not immature or irresponsible to make people aware of the flaws in something without providing an alternative. Admitting the problem is just a first step, and once enough people are aware, then a solution can be worked out. I may not have an alternate solution myself, but that does not mean that I'm immature or irresponsible for merely pointing out the flaws in our current system.
(although this only because you are following your own moral code, which nobody else seems to agree with).
The fact that they don't agree with me is irrelevant. The entire world could believe in something that is false, but that would not make it true (note that I'm not claiming that I'm right, I'm just claiming that the majority believing something doesn't make it right or wrong).
There IS no alternative, logically, unless you consider something along the lines of selling merchandise.
Wait, really? Did you just say that there is no alternative? Never? There can't ever be an alternative?
Uh, you do know that there is practically an infinite amount of systems that haven't even been thought of yet, right? It's a bit hasty to declare that there will never be another viable system.
However, even if there isn't an alternative, that doesn't make my claim that this system isn't working any less true.
that a creator is not entitled to be rewarded for their work if it has no physical form
I see where a lot of people are getting this idea, but know that I'm not really against the idea of rewarding someone for their effort. I'm just against the notion that piracy is somehow theft.
I am a game dev and I don't particularly think the system is broken, per se.
I just find it ridiculous how people are equating piracy to theft, when they really aren't the same.
Otherwise you're just a selfish prick, no matter how you justify it.
I'm sorry if I've come off as someone who thinks that it's a bad thing to buy media. That is simply not the case. I think it's a good thing to buy media and reward artists for their efforts, but I also think that equating piracy to the act of theft is just insane.
Does this mean that you would be okay with somebody spreading lies about you that prevent you from ever getting hired again?
I would be somewhat disappointed at how stupid a majority of employers would have to be to believe mere gossip.
After all, they would only be depriving you of "potential profit," which, according to your argument, does not hurt you.
You're right. I never had the money to begin with, so they didn't directly hurt me. They might have hurt my reputation, but I'm sure I could just tell people they were lying.
Sorry, but "damages I caused"? Are you admitting that the behaviour in my examples are damaging?
No, I was saying that if someone, for instance, broke someones window and then didn't pay for it, harm was inflicted upon that person because they had to pay for it themselves. In which case, they actually lost money that they had previously.
The damages inflicted from not paying a bill or debt vary, but you will find that I am very much against capitalism.
Can you identify the analogy with piracy?
No, because the original artists lost nothing that the pirates specifically requested from them.
Might I add that by fraudulently impersonating you to get my hands on your money, I have not interacted with you.
I'm sorry, but what? It's not merely the act of not interacting with them, it's also the act of depriving them of nothing. The two go hand in hand, not one or the other.
By refusing to pay you money, I have not interacted with you.
Any damages inflicted here depend on the situation. If you specifically requested that someone complete a job for you and then you don't pay them, you have still used up their time, which is not in an infinite quantity. Pirates, however, use their own time and resources to copy data.
By doubling the country's currency, thus halving the value of all your money, and giving me half the country's money, I haven't interacted with you.
Well, I don't think copying is a problem, so I don't really think this is wrong (as annoying as that would be).
At least, I haven't interacted with you physically.
Why did you assume that the only factor in my argument was the lack of interaction? I was referring to how pirates neither interact with the artist at all (thus they don't use up their time or resources) and they don't deprive them of anything.
As someone already pointed out correctly, developers wasted their time when creating the game.
What do they want for their time? Money? If you don't buy their game, have you 'stolen' their potential profit? That doesn't exist, so it can't be stolen. Pirates didn't specifically command them to make the game, anyway.
Your examples above are just ridiculous, for reasons I've stated above. Interaction alone wasn't my argument.
I'd just recommend -- before you make another dozen posts setting forth the same arguments
I'm sorry, but I can't exactly avoid using the same arguments if everyone else is using the same arguments.
and putting words in my mouth
Where did I do that?
that you do research on the free rider problem.
I did, and it seems to be more of a problem with how the system was designed than a problem with pirates who deprive no one of anything.
If you believe in the rule of law instead of the rule of you having a higher standard of living than you've earned, then piracy is a problem.
Laws should only be followed if they make sense, not just because they are laws.
Additionally, the scarcity of software isn't artificial.
Individual software is. Once a software is made, it can be endlessly copied over and over. The scarcity you're referencing is that of people who make software, not software itself.
The fact that they put effort into the software doesn't mean that the pirate is harming them. Again, in order for them to be harmed, the pirate would need to take something from them. Nothing has been taken, and potential profit doesn't exist. If you think it does, then you're indirectly including people who either choose not to buy the software or people who tell others not to buy a product. Both of those people can affect how many copies of the product are purchased, similar to a pirate.
So it's perfectly okay to take, take, take, and give nothing in return?
I said nothing about taking, just copying.
justifying your own selfishness
Selfish how? Selfish because I didn't reward someone with my money? Is it selfish to not buy a product? Is it selfish to tell others not to buy a product because of poor quality? In both those examples, the artists lose out on profit that they could, potentially, have had.
whining that the system is broken.
You don't agree that the need to extort innocents in order to turn a profit is broken?
I really agree with you that the system is broken, but I think there is another issue with downloading: Incentive.
Incentive is irrelevant when you consider the fact that pirates aren't actually taking anything. This is akin to extorting innocent people in order to turn a profit.
Pirating allows the companies to use the "They want it for free" excuse. If there was a boycott, companies would not have that argument and would be forced to fix the issues raised by people who don't buy their stuff.
I do agree with the boycott of the system, but really, there is almost no way to tell who is a pirate and who is not. I mean, sure, you'll be able to look at the amount of seeds that a torrent has, but that's about it. There are far too many websites and places on the internet to tell how many people pirate.
The data itself may be infinite, but the practise of putting it together into a playable game takes a considerable amount of time.
What's your point? The pirate doesn't interact with the artist at all. As I said, pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.
The time it takes to make the game is irrelevant because they only have to do it once (and that's not the pirates fault), and they have no expectation of getting the money back. Your argument overlaps with the potential profit argument, which basically blames everyone in existence for not giving someone else their money because if they had, those people would have been better off.
Slashdot Mirror
In real life it is often up to one person or a small group to decide if it is cool or not.
That's true, but it is still only their opinion in the end, and not fact, regardless of how many people share the same opinion. I know what you mean, however.
I never said that you should adjust your opinion, nor did I say anything about me thinking swastikas are cool.
then there's certainly nothing cool about you.
Or so you think. It's all about opinions, and nothing more. Of course, Microsoft's opinion is what matters when it comes to bans on Xbox live.
That actually sounds like a good way to run an online community.
As someone who doesn't really get offended by mere words or pictures and thinks that people need to toughen up, I disagree. But... I don't really care too much. If they want to do this, fine.
That was a nice straw man argument. I never said anything about me thinking that it's cool. I merely meant to imply that one person cannot decide how 'cool' or 'entertaining' something is for everyone else. I also never said that the Xbox was a 'democracy'.
Because it's not losing belief in something, it's losing a legal right - according to copyright law.
Yes, and I fail to see how that hurts them. Why should they have this 'right', exactly? How does it hurt them if they don't have it?
If stripping away this 'right' that you say they have will stop the injustices done to pirates, then I believe that it's worth it. People have had plenty of questionable rights in and past, and they have were weeded out.
Well how do you improve it then, what exactly are you suggesting needs to be improved?
Get rid of artificial currency, artificial scarcity, copyright law, and planned obsolescence for starters.
But again, my point isn't to argue about what system should be used next, but to make people realize that the current one is broken and that pirates logically aren't hurting anyone.
Don't you mean that you don't think that there's anything cool about swastikas? Other people might disagree.
What are you talking about? You haven't lost the ability to think. Think all you like.
You said (not in that post):
Like I said, you've deprived them of the exclusivity of distribution, which obviously has significant value.
I fail to see how losing the ability to believe in something (believe that they have the exclusive right to control the distribution of their digital media) can harm you. Can you explain that?
Improved? But you said it was fundamentally broken, you said it was a problem of our capitalist society. A society you choose to be a part of because there is no superior alternative available.
Yes, improved. I said nothing about a perfect solution. Yes, broken. Broken as in highly flawed (alright, wrong wording there).
Yes, there's currently no place in the world which has a superior system in place. Or at least, there's currently no supported solutions that are superior.
Are you blind or just stupid?
That's not what you said above. You said that any society that does not utilize artificial currency and has people that work because they love their profession couldn't work. I asked you what you base that off of. I fail to see how I misinterpreted you there.
Fact is such a society does not work hence the reason we have the current system, it's the best available.
You base this off of what, exactly? Has a legitimate resource-based society actually been implemented before? Or are you just speculated based on things such as "incentive"? I gave a very, very simple answer. There are a number of different ways such a system could work (not that all of them would work), so merely claiming that a very wide range of ideas doesn't work is a bit hasty.
Does that make the original Mona Lisa worth less?
Unless people find value in the physical copy, yes (some people find value in the original). It really depends on the person.
You are right that you're not taking away anything from the artist but because there is a need for money you are possibly preventing any more original works to be created.
You're right, and they're only hurting themselves. If they want to see the artist produce more content in this current system, pay them.
If you want more art, games, music, movies, you can't stop contributing to the cause.
Exactly.
The author is deprived a potential sale.
As I've said time and time again, you absolutely cannot be deprived of something that you never even had. It is logically impossible. Even if it were possible, this would mean that everyone who merely warned others of bad products has deprived others of a potential sale.
If you can name or describe any of those almost infinite ideas, please do.
The thing is, I do not need to. Logically, there are an almost infinite amount of systems that one could come up with. Now, not all of them would work, but there's too many of them to simply reduce that number down to two possible systems.
Very few people are, will be, or can be motivated simply by love of their profession. Most people hate their jobs and hate working period. Until you can guarantee with absolute certainty that there will be just enough or an excess of farmers, road builders, factory workers, etc. to provide the basics for modern human society, you can keep your utopia far away from me.
It's not a utopia, as that implies perfection. It's merely a society without money.
Machines would replace people in many of the tedious, simple jobs (something that is already possible but neglected in order to "save jobs").
Also, you can't guarantee anything with absolute certainty (heh), especially something as complex and illogical as human behavior.
The love of their profession would be what motivates someone. However, while an artificial currency would no longer exist, the rest of society wouldn't just stand by and watch as someone leaches off of their work and contributes nothing.
No, but it does make the discussion quite pointless.
No, it doesn't. My points that the current system is broken would remain true, and other people may start to realize that it is true so that they can come up with a better alternative (maybe). It's not completely pointless.
That's not a logical argument at all. When you produce something, no one has an obligation to purchase it.
Apparently they do, since if they don't, they've 'deprived' (not really, since they didn't have it in the first place) the author of a potential sale, or potential profit. The pirate may have the product, but again, that doesn't hurt the artist because copying something doesn't alone deprive anyone of anything, and in order to deprive someone of something, they must logically have it in the first place.
take it that's your real problem here and we're all evil because we find money useful as an efficient means of exchange between goods, services, and our time.
It ultimately makes us hurt others (corruption through bribery, desire to get more, and pointless wars fought ultimately for profit), the environment (money being treated as more important than the environment, which is something that happens often), other animals (if it's profitable to treat them cruelly, it will happen unless someone is there to stop them). It only provides incentive because people have already been indoctrinated to believe that money is the only thing they should work for.
You can think that as much as you like, you haven't lost that ability at all.
Sorry, but I still really don't understand how losing the ability to think something harms someone. Can you explain that to me?
Doubt all you want, you certainly haven't contributed anything to disprove it.
You're right, but it hasn't been disproved, either, so let's leave it at that.
You can whine about how it's not perfect but nothing is perfect.
The "don't fix it if it isn't completely broken" mentality ensures that nothing will get done. If there is a chance that something could be improved, it should be taken, or at least tried.
Such a thing is not granted to you by the law so of course you haven't lost anything.
I've lost my ability to think that I can control all of the money in the world. Whether that was at any point granted to me by the law is irrelevant, because we are apparently talking about ideas instead of actual tangible harm now.
No but it might be that it is the best possible solution.
Against an almost infinite number of possible solutions, I really doubt that.
If this game were to be pirated 5% of the time (random figure pulled out of my arse, but I really think its on the low side), and no action were taken against that act, what proportion of the 95% who spent $45 on the game would think 'hey, those guys are getting the same game as me but for free, and theres nothing being done about it - why am I spending my money?'
Again, please understand my argument. Whether the pirates would have bought the product or not is irrelevant. The amount of people who pirate something is also irrelevant.
My argument revolves around the idea that claiming that you can harm someone by stealing something that doesn't exist (potential profit) doesn't make sense. Not to mention that you're also including everyone who merely decided not to buy the product.
This isn't friends telling friends not to purchase, this is about the wrong actions having no consequence and the public seeing that.
But the thing is that both practices can negatively harm sales, and that merely not paying someone whilst not using up any of their time or resources doesn't hurt them. It must be a combination of those three conditions, which piracy is.
The problem of people not working because of a lack of money lies in the system itself, because logically pirates aren't doing any harm. Pirates are only harming themselves if they continue to pirate media that they enjoy and the artists no longer have the funds to continue producing any more.
Also, note that I think it's a good thing if someone decides to reward an artist for their effort. I just believe that equating piracy to theft or harm is ridiculous.
It's interesting to consider that concept: "infinite supply". So far as I can tell, there isn't an infinite supply of resources to provide to people in order for them to work on video games (or films, music, theatre, etc.).
Obviously, I am speaking of the digital media itself and not of people who produce it.
How do you define harm?
If someone steals something from someone else (as in, the other person was actually deprived of something that they originally owned), the other person is harmed.
If someone physically harms someone, obviously the other person was harmed.
If someone uses up someones time with promises of payment but then decides not to pay them, that person was harmed. Pirates differ from this because they use their own time and resources to copy data.
Producers of content feel harmed when they don't receive what they feel is just reward for their efforts.
So, we should disallow people from choosing whether or not to buy a product or disallow people from telling others not to buy a product because it could hurt sales?
Just like you'd feel harmed if your employer decided to pay you less than you'd agreed to work for them for.
The difference here is clear. Pirates, again, use their own time and resources to copy the data, not interacting with the artists at all (or depriving them of anything).
In this scenario, someone was promised a certain amount of money and used their time to work to get it. They didn't get it, and so they wasted their time.
So when people pirate it, that "social contract" has been violated.
Merely violating a social contract by itself doesn't hurt someone. In order for it to be harmful, you have to either deprive someone of something, use their time, or use their resources.
Also, be aware that I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to pay artists, just that piracy can't logically be equated to stealing.
I wouldn't be happy because they've wasted my time. Time is not in an infinite quantity, and pirates do not use up the time of the original artists because they use their own time and resources to copy data.
IT DEPRIVES THEM OF THE VALUE OF THEIR TIME.
But, pirates aren't using any of their time. They use their own time and resources to copy the data that the artist originally created.
If you argue that the artist should be paid for the time that they originally put into the product, then you should blame everyone who merely decided not to buy the product, not just pirates. Neither groups granted the author money.
Generalize your dumb argument and imagine that nobody pays for ANY of these goods.
Yes, what would happen? There wouldn't be anymore of those goods. Whose fault would that be? The people who didn't pay for those goods. Who did they hurt? Only themselves. The act of not paying someone money whilst also not using up any of their time or resources does no damage to them.
On a side note, your dumb argument implies that doctors should work for free (well, if you don't pay the doctor you aren't really stealing from you, are you?), architects too, engineers, software developers, teachers, etc. Really?
As I have already pointed out, you used up their time with promises of payment, but then didn't pay them. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy data.
Is that what you think is what drives the big game releases?
If you think that all game developers that work in large companies do not enjoy developing games, then I believe that you are wrong. Sure, some of them are doing it for the money, but I suspect that that number if not very large. From what I hear, working in a large game developing studio is very hectic, to say the least. These are the types of developers that we can stand to lose.
As a software developer, I can say I enjoy some parts of the development process, but I would never, ever spend 8 hours per day on it if I didn't get paid for it.
Why is that? Is it because you need to have money to live in the current system? There are actually plenty of developers who work on software in their spare time. Very talented ones.
Would you still be a software developer if you lived in a system where money was not required?
I used to think a bit like you (although not as extremely) but I've come to realise that proposing to tear down a system for which you have no alternative is both immature and irresponsible.
It's not immature or irresponsible to make people aware of the flaws in something without providing an alternative. Admitting the problem is just a first step, and once enough people are aware, then a solution can be worked out. I may not have an alternate solution myself, but that does not mean that I'm immature or irresponsible for merely pointing out the flaws in our current system.
(although this only because you are following your own moral code, which nobody else seems to agree with).
The fact that they don't agree with me is irrelevant. The entire world could believe in something that is false, but that would not make it true (note that I'm not claiming that I'm right, I'm just claiming that the majority believing something doesn't make it right or wrong).
There IS no alternative, logically, unless you consider something along the lines of selling merchandise.
Wait, really? Did you just say that there is no alternative? Never? There can't ever be an alternative?
Uh, you do know that there is practically an infinite amount of systems that haven't even been thought of yet, right? It's a bit hasty to declare that there will never be another viable system.
However, even if there isn't an alternative, that doesn't make my claim that this system isn't working any less true.
that a creator is not entitled to be rewarded for their work if it has no physical form
I see where a lot of people are getting this idea, but know that I'm not really against the idea of rewarding someone for their effort. I'm just against the notion that piracy is somehow theft.
What system are you talking about?
Capitalism. Sorry.
I am a game dev and I don't particularly think the system is broken, per se.
I just find it ridiculous how people are equating piracy to theft, when they really aren't the same.
Otherwise you're just a selfish prick, no matter how you justify it.
I'm sorry if I've come off as someone who thinks that it's a bad thing to buy media. That is simply not the case. I think it's a good thing to buy media and reward artists for their efforts, but I also think that equating piracy to the act of theft is just insane.
Does this mean that you would be okay with somebody spreading lies about you that prevent you from ever getting hired again?
I would be somewhat disappointed at how stupid a majority of employers would have to be to believe mere gossip.
After all, they would only be depriving you of "potential profit," which, according to your argument, does not hurt you.
You're right. I never had the money to begin with, so they didn't directly hurt me. They might have hurt my reputation, but I'm sure I could just tell people they were lying.
I believe in freedom of speech, too.
Sorry, but "damages I caused"? Are you admitting that the behaviour in my examples are damaging?
No, I was saying that if someone, for instance, broke someones window and then didn't pay for it, harm was inflicted upon that person because they had to pay for it themselves. In which case, they actually lost money that they had previously.
The damages inflicted from not paying a bill or debt vary, but you will find that I am very much against capitalism.
Can you identify the analogy with piracy?
No, because the original artists lost nothing that the pirates specifically requested from them.
Might I add that by fraudulently impersonating you to get my hands on your money, I have not interacted with you.
I'm sorry, but what? It's not merely the act of not interacting with them, it's also the act of depriving them of nothing. The two go hand in hand, not one or the other.
By refusing to pay you money, I have not interacted with you.
Any damages inflicted here depend on the situation. If you specifically requested that someone complete a job for you and then you don't pay them, you have still used up their time, which is not in an infinite quantity. Pirates, however, use their own time and resources to copy data.
By doubling the country's currency, thus halving the value of all your money, and giving me half the country's money, I haven't interacted with you.
Well, I don't think copying is a problem, so I don't really think this is wrong (as annoying as that would be).
At least, I haven't interacted with you physically.
Why did you assume that the only factor in my argument was the lack of interaction? I was referring to how pirates neither interact with the artist at all (thus they don't use up their time or resources) and they don't deprive them of anything.
As someone already pointed out correctly, developers wasted their time when creating the game.
What do they want for their time? Money? If you don't buy their game, have you 'stolen' their potential profit? That doesn't exist, so it can't be stolen. Pirates didn't specifically command them to make the game, anyway.
Your examples above are just ridiculous, for reasons I've stated above. Interaction alone wasn't my argument.
I'd just recommend -- before you make another dozen posts setting forth the same arguments
I'm sorry, but I can't exactly avoid using the same arguments if everyone else is using the same arguments.
and putting words in my mouth
Where did I do that?
that you do research on the free rider problem.
I did, and it seems to be more of a problem with how the system was designed than a problem with pirates who deprive no one of anything.
If you believe in the rule of law instead of the rule of you having a higher standard of living than you've earned, then piracy is a problem.
Laws should only be followed if they make sense, not just because they are laws.
Additionally, the scarcity of software isn't artificial.
Individual software is. Once a software is made, it can be endlessly copied over and over. The scarcity you're referencing is that of people who make software, not software itself.
The fact that they put effort into the software doesn't mean that the pirate is harming them. Again, in order for them to be harmed, the pirate would need to take something from them. Nothing has been taken, and potential profit doesn't exist. If you think it does, then you're indirectly including people who either choose not to buy the software or people who tell others not to buy a product. Both of those people can affect how many copies of the product are purchased, similar to a pirate.
So it's perfectly okay to take, take, take, and give nothing in return?
I said nothing about taking, just copying.
justifying your own selfishness
Selfish how? Selfish because I didn't reward someone with my money? Is it selfish to not buy a product? Is it selfish to tell others not to buy a product because of poor quality? In both those examples, the artists lose out on profit that they could, potentially, have had.
whining that the system is broken.
You don't agree that the need to extort innocents in order to turn a profit is broken?
I really agree with you that the system is broken, but I think there is another issue with downloading: Incentive.
Incentive is irrelevant when you consider the fact that pirates aren't actually taking anything. This is akin to extorting innocent people in order to turn a profit.
Pirating allows the companies to use the "They want it for free" excuse. If there was a boycott, companies would not have that argument and would be forced to fix the issues raised by people who don't buy their stuff.
I do agree with the boycott of the system, but really, there is almost no way to tell who is a pirate and who is not. I mean, sure, you'll be able to look at the amount of seeds that a torrent has, but that's about it. There are far too many websites and places on the internet to tell how many people pirate.
The data itself may be infinite, but the practise of putting it together into a playable game takes a considerable amount of time.
What's your point? The pirate doesn't interact with the artist at all. As I said, pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.
The time it takes to make the game is irrelevant because they only have to do it once (and that's not the pirates fault), and they have no expectation of getting the money back. Your argument overlaps with the potential profit argument, which basically blames everyone in existence for not giving someone else their money because if they had, those people would have been better off.