saying that the artists are not hurt by people illegally copying their work is just wrong
So, I suppose you didn't read my comment? At all? Why is it wrong? How does it hurt them? In order for it to hurt them, they must be deprived of something. If you say that they're being 'hurt' because they aren't being given money, well, that was money that they never had. Not to mention that you should read my above examples.
Maybe it is broken, but unless you have a bright idea to change it, then it is the system we have to live with.
I didn't say otherwise. However, that does not make the act of blaming innocents for the shortcomings of said system any less illogical or 'wrong'.
The question becomes, do you want to play a new game next year? In 5 years? Someone has to pay for them, they won't make themselves.
This is a more appropriate question. Yes, if pirates want to play future games, they should pay for the product. I do not disagree with that statement. If they don't, they're only harming themselves.
Based on your fucked up logic, the software industry has no business existing
Based on my logic, the system that is currently broken should be fixed, and pirates (who don't deprive anyone of anything) shouldn't be blamed for its shortcomings.
If you think that merely not giving someone money harms them, then that is a category that nearly everyone in existence fits into. Merely not buying a product would mean that you have 'harmed' them.
Blaming innocent people for the shortcomings of a broken system, as I've said many times, is not the answer.
Actually that's the natural extension to your argument. In order for there to be no damages to the developer, 100% of those pirates must have been completely unwilling to buy the software, if even one of the individuals would have paid but ends up not paying because of the pirated version then the pirates have harmed the developer.
No, it's really not. Not giving someone your money doesn't hurt them because that doesn't deprive anyone of anything that they previously owned. They never had the money in the first place.
I'm going to quote my previous examples:
Suppose someone decides not to buy a product from a store. Would the store have had more money if they did? Yes. Using the logic of those who utilize the potential profit argument, this would mean that they have 'stolen' potential profit from the store, and have therefore 'harmed' a legitimate business.
Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'. This is an example similar to piracy because many argue that piracy affects sales, but so does this.
As I said, if artists who live in a certain system are forced to harm innocents in order to make a profit off of them so that they can continue doing what they love, the blame should not be put on the innocents (as they aren't doing any harm), but the system itself.
You're not harming the game developer, you're harming all of us, by removing future game developement efforts.
So, if someone decides not to buy a product, and them not buying it makes the game developer go out of business, they are harming everyone?
Or how about people who tell others not to buy a product because they believe it is of poor quality (and in this example, they ultimately decide not to)? Have they harmed everyone as well? Should we rid ourselves of certain speech and consumer choice because it might make someone go out of business even though they aren't hurting anyone?
As I said before:
Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.
If artists have to intentionally harm people who do no harm to them or go out of business for not doing so, that is a flaw in a broken system.
No, not at all. I'm thinking that copying something whilst not depriving anyone of anything is not the same thing as actually taking something that someone previously owned.
I still don't understand what you're trying to say. The pirate doesn't interact with the market or the artist in any way. The copy merely existing doesn't affect anything.
Oh, and:
Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.
A system which forces artists to introduce artificial scarcity and go after those who oppose it merely so they can continue doing what they love is a broken system.
Friend, if you're going to call the system broken, it seems like you should propose an alternative.
My inability to think of an alternative system does not change the fact that the current system is, in fact, broken.
I've not myself encountered another way for artists to be sufficiently supported to continue in their art.
But, that still doesn't change the fact that pirates aren't actually harming anyone anymore than someone who simply decides not to give them your money. The system is illogical, and even if there is no other viable solution, that will always remain so.
I'd honestly rather not suggest alternative systems because the debate isn't about what system that we should use, the debate is about how piracy doesn't actually hurt anyone.
But, I ask again, how does this hurt them? They have been deprived of nothing that they owned.
Also, you obviously think the product has some value if your willing to take it.
Entertainment value. But, if I can get it for free, and I don't pay them, I'm not actually harming them.
Again, not giving someone money doesn't harm them if you haven't even interacted with them in the first place. They haven't deprived the artists of time, property, or anything else.
If I took some of that, you are in not different shape under your same excuses then if I took your latest fiction works and copied it.
No, I wouldn't be. I do not support illogical arguments for personal gain. Stop blaming people who are not depriving anyone of anything and start blaming the system that practically forces artists to hurt innocents if they wish to continue doing what they love.
But seriously. I dare you to justify downloading games, how would the developers get paid?
How would developers get paid if people decided not to give them their money? How would developers get paid if people were allowed to warn others of potentially bad products (they might decide not to)?
Not giving someone your money doesn't harm them. Taking something from them does, but that's not what pirates do.
As I said above, this entire situation is a shortcoming of a broken system. The fact that artists supposedly (I'm still not convinced) need to introduce artificial scarcity and harm innocents who did nothing wrong in order to product more content means that the system is broken in the first place. You might as well force everyone to buy the product.
but it's definitely selfish.
It's also selfish to artificially limit the supply of a good that would otherwise be in an infinite supply only to people who have the object known as "money." Fix the system, not piracy.
They guarantee them a chance by allowing the artist control over distribution of their work.
How does disobeying this harm anyone?
Perhaps the harm is to society as a whole, for if artists weren't given this control, a fairly large portion of our culture likely wouldn't exist.
The thing is, that is a problem with the poorly made system, not people who merely copied data and deprived no one of anything that they previously owned.
By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft.
That really depends on what you owe for in the first place. Not paying for damages that you caused would, well, be damaging (due to the fact that the person never actually paid it off and the original person had to). Same thing goes for not paying for something that you bought, as they lost a physical object of a certain estimated value (according to the current system) and were never paid back for it. Pirates don't actually deprive them of anything or interact with them in any way.
No sensible person would dispute that I have hurt you
I disagree on your definition of "sensible."
Suppose you're doing some kind of expensive contract work, that takes months and costs thousands of dollars. At the end of it, as per your contract, your clients are supposed to pay you, but they refuse to.
Bad example. In that scenario, they have wasted that persons time (which isn't in an infinite supply). Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.
Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.
My point is, blaming pirates for the shortcomings of a broken system is illogical. If artists can't make money without harming innocents, that sounds like a problem with the system.
I'm not voicing my disapproval of rewarding game developers who have done a good job with money, but what I am voicing my disapproval of is the notion that by not giving someone money, you are harming them. I actually think that in the current system, it is a nice thing to give someone money for a product that is in an infinite supply.
Now I have people playing the game, but not giving me any credit in a form that allows me to pay my debtors: money.
But, see, this is where it gets interesting. You're mainly upset with these people because they haven't given you money, not because they're playing your game (as copying data doesn't hurt anyone as no one is deprived of anything). This is a category that also includes everyone who merely didn't buy the product. Not to mention that not giving someone money doesn't harm them (as that is an action that deprives them of nothing).
If artists need to introduce artificial scarcity to continue doing what they love and participating in society, then that is a fault of a broken system, not people who do no harm to others.
SO you don't think the government created right to exclusive control over the copying and distribution of copyrighted works is being deprived?
They created that artificial right, yes. But not abiding by the law, as I pointed out above, deprives no one of anything. If that's your only defense, then let me just point out that again, how does it hurt them if someone pirates their work? Violating their 'right' to distribute products that are in an infinite supply whilst not taking anything from them doesn't actually harm them by itself.
Each person who pirates a game benefits himself or herself, but if enough people do this it's no longer tenable to make games and no one has a game to play, for free or otherwise.
Don't you think that it's a shortcoming of a broken system if people can no longer do what they enjoy without attempting to harm people who have done nothing to them or harmed them in any way? Piracy isn't what needs to be fixed. The current system, however, does.
Yes, it is. I applaud them for doing that, but that doesn't mean that pirates are doing any harm in the first place. I don't blame them for trying to make more money, however. This is mainly a problem with how the system is designed.
As I already said, I myself do not have a perfect solution to this. However, that does not change the fact that the current system is broken.
What shortcomings are you talking about?
Don't you think it's a shortcoming with the system if artists have to introduce artificial scarcity for products that would otherwise be in an infinite supply just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system and continue doing what they love? Don't you think it's a shortcoming when people who logically aren't doing any harm (not giving someone money isn't doing harm) are blamed for not giving someone money (which is a category that nearly everyone in existence fits into)?
If you think the price isn't worth it, then don't pay and don't play/watch/listen to whatever they created.
You could also go another route. You could merely get the media for free whilst not harming anyone.
Learn some economics before you start with the "hurts no one" crap.
Since pirates aren't actually taking the product itself and are merely copying data, how are the artists being hurt, exactly? They (or anyone else) aren't being deprived of the product itself.
Is it "potential profit" that you think the pirates are depriving the artists of? If so, not only is it logically impossible to deprive someone of objects that do not exist (potential profit doesn't exist), but by claiming that pirates 'steal' potential profit, you are also either directly or indirectly blaming nearly everyone in existence for this as well.
You 'steal' potential profit by not giving someone money or by interfering with their flow of profit. That means that if you decide not to buy a product from a store, for example, you'd be 'stealing' potential profit (you've 'harmed' the store because the store would have had more money if you would have given it to them). That means that you're 'stealing' potential profit whenever you decide to tell people who are about to buy a product not to buy it (and they decide not to) as the artists would have had more money if you hadn't done that.
Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.
It does hurt someone. It hurts the creators, who would otherwise get some of the money.
"Potential profit," then? For one thing, in order for it to explicitly hurt them, something that they previously owned must be taken from them.
Suppose someone decides not to buy a product from a store. Would the store have had more money if they did? Yes. Using the logic of those who utilize the potential profit argument, this would mean that they have 'stolen' potential profit from the store, and have therefore 'harmed' a legitimate business.
Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'. This is an example similar to piracy because many argue that piracy affects sales, but so does this.
Whether the pirate has the product or not is irrelevant. Merely obtaining the product deprived no one of anything (because they copied the data and didn't take anything from anyone).
Its brokenness, however, should not predicate the suffering of content creators from revenue lost due to illegal copying/downloading.
Likewise, the blame also shouldn't be put on people who do things that harm no one (as explained above).
Even if you assume 100% of pirates wouldn't have bought the game if they couldn't get it for free
I don't assume that. I don't even care if 100% of the pirates would have bought the media. That's like saying that it should be illegal to tell your friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it because that could 'hurt' sales.
what gives them the right to play the game without paying for it?
Answer this: if it doesn't hurt anyone, then why does it matter? You know that no one is being deprived of anything that they previously owned.
You can say that they're 'stealing' potential profit, but not only is it impossible to steal objects that don't even exist, but you'd be blaming just about everyone in existence by doing so. You 'steal' potential profit merely by choosing not to give someone money or by interfering with their flow of profit. That effectively means that not buying a product from a store would mean that you have 'stole' potential profit from the store (and have therefore 'harmed' them because they would have been better off if you had given them your money).
Are you in favor of people sneaking in to movie theaters? Assuming a non-full showing, it doesn't "hurt" the theater one bit, but it's obviously the wrong thing to do.
If you admit that it doesn't hurt them, then why is it the 'wrong' (subjective) thing to do? I think it's fine if it's not inflicting any harm upon them.
I do? I never claimed that I did. It is no easy task to come up with such a thing, but my inability to think of a viable alternative does not change the fact that the current system is terrible and some effort should at least be going into coming up with another way (some people already have suggested alternatives, but the people in power would never accept them). Even if there were no viable alternatives, it's illogical to blame people who do something that harms no one for the shortcomings of a broken system.
Slashdot Mirror
saying that the artists are not hurt by people illegally copying their work is just wrong
So, I suppose you didn't read my comment? At all? Why is it wrong? How does it hurt them? In order for it to hurt them, they must be deprived of something. If you say that they're being 'hurt' because they aren't being given money, well, that was money that they never had. Not to mention that you should read my above examples.
I don't know, how are they hurting you? I'm not sure how that hurts a person, but if it doesn't, then I don't see the harm.
Maybe it is broken, but unless you have a bright idea to change it, then it is the system we have to live with.
I didn't say otherwise. However, that does not make the act of blaming innocents for the shortcomings of said system any less illogical or 'wrong'.
The question becomes, do you want to play a new game next year? In 5 years? Someone has to pay for them, they won't make themselves.
This is a more appropriate question. Yes, if pirates want to play future games, they should pay for the product. I do not disagree with that statement. If they don't, they're only harming themselves.
Based on your fucked up logic, the software industry has no business existing
Based on my logic, the system that is currently broken should be fixed, and pirates (who don't deprive anyone of anything) shouldn't be blamed for its shortcomings.
If you think that merely not giving someone money harms them, then that is a category that nearly everyone in existence fits into. Merely not buying a product would mean that you have 'harmed' them.
Blaming innocent people for the shortcomings of a broken system, as I've said many times, is not the answer.
Actually that's the natural extension to your argument. In order for there to be no damages to the developer, 100% of those pirates must have been completely unwilling to buy the software, if even one of the individuals would have paid but ends up not paying because of the pirated version then the pirates have harmed the developer.
No, it's really not. Not giving someone your money doesn't hurt them because that doesn't deprive anyone of anything that they previously owned. They never had the money in the first place.
I'm going to quote my previous examples:
Suppose someone decides not to buy a product from a store. Would the store have had more money if they did? Yes. Using the logic of those who utilize the potential profit argument, this would mean that they have 'stolen' potential profit from the store, and have therefore 'harmed' a legitimate business.
Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'. This is an example similar to piracy because many argue that piracy affects sales, but so does this.
As I said, if artists who live in a certain system are forced to harm innocents in order to make a profit off of them so that they can continue doing what they love, the blame should not be put on the innocents (as they aren't doing any harm), but the system itself.
It's still copyright infringement.
Currently, yes. But merely infringing on copyright doesn't hurt anyone due to the fact that it doesn't deprive anyone of anything.
You're not harming the game developer, you're harming all of us, by removing future game developement efforts.
So, if someone decides not to buy a product, and them not buying it makes the game developer go out of business, they are harming everyone?
Or how about people who tell others not to buy a product because they believe it is of poor quality (and in this example, they ultimately decide not to)? Have they harmed everyone as well? Should we rid ourselves of certain speech and consumer choice because it might make someone go out of business even though they aren't hurting anyone?
As I said before:
Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.
If artists have to intentionally harm people who do no harm to them or go out of business for not doing so, that is a flaw in a broken system.
That the way you are thinking?
No, not at all. I'm thinking that copying something whilst not depriving anyone of anything is not the same thing as actually taking something that someone previously owned.
I still don't understand what you're trying to say. The pirate doesn't interact with the market or the artist in any way. The copy merely existing doesn't affect anything.
Oh, and:
Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.
A system which forces artists to introduce artificial scarcity and go after those who oppose it merely so they can continue doing what they love is a broken system.
Friend, if you're going to call the system broken, it seems like you should propose an alternative.
My inability to think of an alternative system does not change the fact that the current system is, in fact, broken.
I've not myself encountered another way for artists to be sufficiently supported to continue in their art.
But, that still doesn't change the fact that pirates aren't actually harming anyone anymore than someone who simply decides not to give them your money. The system is illogical, and even if there is no other viable solution, that will always remain so.
I'd honestly rather not suggest alternative systems because the debate isn't about what system that we should use, the debate is about how piracy doesn't actually hurt anyone.
You are talking that from them.
But, I ask again, how does this hurt them? They have been deprived of nothing that they owned.
Also, you obviously think the product has some value if your willing to take it.
Entertainment value. But, if I can get it for free, and I don't pay them, I'm not actually harming them.
Again, not giving someone money doesn't harm them if you haven't even interacted with them in the first place. They haven't deprived the artists of time, property, or anything else.
If I took some of that, you are in not different shape under your same excuses then if I took your latest fiction works and copied it.
No, I wouldn't be. I do not support illogical arguments for personal gain. Stop blaming people who are not depriving anyone of anything and start blaming the system that practically forces artists to hurt innocents if they wish to continue doing what they love.
But seriously. I dare you to justify downloading games, how would the developers get paid?
How would developers get paid if people decided not to give them their money? How would developers get paid if people were allowed to warn others of potentially bad products (they might decide not to)?
Not giving someone your money doesn't harm them. Taking something from them does, but that's not what pirates do.
As I said above, this entire situation is a shortcoming of a broken system. The fact that artists supposedly (I'm still not convinced) need to introduce artificial scarcity and harm innocents who did nothing wrong in order to product more content means that the system is broken in the first place. You might as well force everyone to buy the product.
but it's definitely selfish.
It's also selfish to artificially limit the supply of a good that would otherwise be in an infinite supply only to people who have the object known as "money." Fix the system, not piracy.
They guarantee them a chance by allowing the artist control over distribution of their work.
How does disobeying this harm anyone?
Perhaps the harm is to society as a whole, for if artists weren't given this control, a fairly large portion of our culture likely wouldn't exist.
The thing is, that is a problem with the poorly made system, not people who merely copied data and deprived no one of anything that they previously owned.
This seems familiar.
By your characterisation of theft, this is certainly not theft.
That really depends on what you owe for in the first place. Not paying for damages that you caused would, well, be damaging (due to the fact that the person never actually paid it off and the original person had to). Same thing goes for not paying for something that you bought, as they lost a physical object of a certain estimated value (according to the current system) and were never paid back for it. Pirates don't actually deprive them of anything or interact with them in any way.
No sensible person would dispute that I have hurt you
I disagree on your definition of "sensible."
Suppose you're doing some kind of expensive contract work, that takes months and costs thousands of dollars. At the end of it, as per your contract, your clients are supposed to pay you, but they refuse to.
Bad example. In that scenario, they have wasted that persons time (which isn't in an infinite supply). Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.
Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.
My point is, blaming pirates for the shortcomings of a broken system is illogical. If artists can't make money without harming innocents, that sounds like a problem with the system.
One could argue that they are increasing the supply, and thus for a more or less fixed demand they are reducing the market value.
Not really. Digital media has always been in infinite supply. Merely making more copies does no damage to anyone.
I'm not voicing my disapproval of rewarding game developers who have done a good job with money, but what I am voicing my disapproval of is the notion that by not giving someone money, you are harming them. I actually think that in the current system, it is a nice thing to give someone money for a product that is in an infinite supply.
Now I have people playing the game, but not giving me any credit in a form that allows me to pay my debtors: money.
But, see, this is where it gets interesting. You're mainly upset with these people because they haven't given you money, not because they're playing your game (as copying data doesn't hurt anyone as no one is deprived of anything). This is a category that also includes everyone who merely didn't buy the product. Not to mention that not giving someone money doesn't harm them (as that is an action that deprives them of nothing).
If artists need to introduce artificial scarcity to continue doing what they love and participating in society, then that is a fault of a broken system, not people who do no harm to others.
SO you don't think the government created right to exclusive control over the copying and distribution of copyrighted works is being deprived?
They created that artificial right, yes. But not abiding by the law, as I pointed out above, deprives no one of anything. If that's your only defense, then let me just point out that again, how does it hurt them if someone pirates their work? Violating their 'right' to distribute products that are in an infinite supply whilst not taking anything from them doesn't actually harm them by itself.
Each person who pirates a game benefits himself or herself, but if enough people do this it's no longer tenable to make games and no one has a game to play, for free or otherwise.
Don't you think that it's a shortcoming of a broken system if people can no longer do what they enjoy without attempting to harm people who have done nothing to them or harmed them in any way? Piracy isn't what needs to be fixed. The current system, however, does.
Yes, it is. I applaud them for doing that, but that doesn't mean that pirates are doing any harm in the first place. I don't blame them for trying to make more money, however. This is mainly a problem with how the system is designed.
And how would you propose fixing this system?
As I already said, I myself do not have a perfect solution to this. However, that does not change the fact that the current system is broken.
What shortcomings are you talking about?
Don't you think it's a shortcoming with the system if artists have to introduce artificial scarcity for products that would otherwise be in an infinite supply just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system and continue doing what they love? Don't you think it's a shortcoming when people who logically aren't doing any harm (not giving someone money isn't doing harm) are blamed for not giving someone money (which is a category that nearly everyone in existence fits into)?
If you think the price isn't worth it, then don't pay and don't play/watch/listen to whatever they created.
You could also go another route. You could merely get the media for free whilst not harming anyone.
Learn some economics before you start with the "hurts no one" crap.
Since pirates aren't actually taking the product itself and are merely copying data, how are the artists being hurt, exactly? They (or anyone else) aren't being deprived of the product itself.
Is it "potential profit" that you think the pirates are depriving the artists of? If so, not only is it logically impossible to deprive someone of objects that do not exist (potential profit doesn't exist), but by claiming that pirates 'steal' potential profit, you are also either directly or indirectly blaming nearly everyone in existence for this as well.
You 'steal' potential profit by not giving someone money or by interfering with their flow of profit. That means that if you decide not to buy a product from a store, for example, you'd be 'stealing' potential profit (you've 'harmed' the store because the store would have had more money if you would have given it to them). That means that you're 'stealing' potential profit whenever you decide to tell people who are about to buy a product not to buy it (and they decide not to) as the artists would have had more money if you hadn't done that.
Don't you think the system is broken when people who logically do no harm to anyone are blamed simply because they decided not to give someone their money (an action which doesn't really harm anyone)? Don't you think the system is broken when artists are encouraged to introduce artificial scarcity on products that would otherwise be in an unlimited quantity just to make a profit so that they can continue participating in said system? That's what needs to be fixed, not piracy.
It does hurt someone. It hurts the creators, who would otherwise get some of the money.
"Potential profit," then? For one thing, in order for it to explicitly hurt them, something that they previously owned must be taken from them.
Suppose someone decides not to buy a product from a store. Would the store have had more money if they did? Yes. Using the logic of those who utilize the potential profit argument, this would mean that they have 'stolen' potential profit from the store, and have therefore 'harmed' a legitimate business.
Suppose that someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to buy it. Would the store have had more money if the person hadn't told their friends not to buy the product (or if the friends had given them their money anyway)? Yes. Using the same logic above, it can be concluded, then, that the business was 'hurt'. This is an example similar to piracy because many argue that piracy affects sales, but so does this.
Whether the pirate has the product or not is irrelevant. Merely obtaining the product deprived no one of anything (because they copied the data and didn't take anything from anyone).
Its brokenness, however, should not predicate the suffering of content creators from revenue lost due to illegal copying/downloading.
Likewise, the blame also shouldn't be put on people who do things that harm no one (as explained above).
Even if you assume 100% of pirates wouldn't have bought the game if they couldn't get it for free
I don't assume that. I don't even care if 100% of the pirates would have bought the media. That's like saying that it should be illegal to tell your friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it because that could 'hurt' sales.
what gives them the right to play the game without paying for it?
Answer this: if it doesn't hurt anyone, then why does it matter? You know that no one is being deprived of anything that they previously owned.
You can say that they're 'stealing' potential profit, but not only is it impossible to steal objects that don't even exist, but you'd be blaming just about everyone in existence by doing so. You 'steal' potential profit merely by choosing not to give someone money or by interfering with their flow of profit. That effectively means that not buying a product from a store would mean that you have 'stole' potential profit from the store (and have therefore 'harmed' them because they would have been better off if you had given them your money).
Are you in favor of people sneaking in to movie theaters? Assuming a non-full showing, it doesn't "hurt" the theater one bit, but it's obviously the wrong thing to do.
If you admit that it doesn't hurt them, then why is it the 'wrong' (subjective) thing to do? I think it's fine if it's not inflicting any harm upon them.
I do? I never claimed that I did. It is no easy task to come up with such a thing, but my inability to think of a viable alternative does not change the fact that the current system is terrible and some effort should at least be going into coming up with another way (some people already have suggested alternatives, but the people in power would never accept them). Even if there were no viable alternatives, it's illogical to blame people who do something that harms no one for the shortcomings of a broken system.