<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
Quoting db0, reply 4
and have been for more than a few days, then you should either buy it or accept that you’re a thief and quit rationalizing it any other way.
I file-share games regularly, however I have bought all my Stardock games just because of (whatt I thought was) your stance on Piracy.
Now you made me wish I hadn't...
So tell me exactly, since Piracy doesn't result in any lost sales, since piracy actually may have a net positive effect on your sales, where exactly do you get off calling people thieves when you haven't lost anything to them?
Oh did he insult the little pirate...you poor, poor inocent little soul.
Just be an honest thief I hate it when pirates assume outrage, he said anyone who had pirated it and continued to play it for more than a few days was a thief, you can't claim your just using it as a demo if you keep playing.
What have you stolen, well the time and effort of everyone working on the at GPG & Stardock of course. Rather you expecting the development cost to be paid for by legitamate customers. So really it's us people who buy the game you are stealing from in a sense, we are funding your gaming.
When I was a teenager and didn't have much money I used to copy games from my friends at the time I didn't think much of it, but I never effected an outraged sense of entitlement or pretended to myself that the developers did not really deserve to be paid for their work. Now I'm grown up I never pirate games any more than I would steal a copy of a book, because the author and/or developer in both cases deserves to be paid for their work and if I don't Pay I'm stealthing their time and effort.
Now the fact many pirates would never pay for a game anyway doesn't mean their is nothing morally wrong with what they do, or that it isn't theft. Does the fact that most shoplifters wouldn't buy the goods that they steal mean it's not theft?
End of econundrum1's quote
To equate piracy with thievery is a logical fallacy. One is not the other. If there was previous intent to purchase and then the would-be purchaser decided to pirate the game in order to avoid purchasing it our discussion would be on a different rung of the ladder. Piracy is what it is.
I believe you miss the entire point when you try to make an analogy between shoplifting and piracy.
Quoting db0, reply 25@Vespucci
First: You're picking and choosing dictionary definitions that fit your arguments.
Second: You can easily fall into an equivocation fallacy through perfectly accurate dictionary definitions.
If you want to use dictionary definitions then first state which meaning of stealing you use and then we can discuss if it's harmful or not.
Are you using the definition of "to appropriate ideas without right or acknowledgment."? This is also called plagiarism and the harm it creates is debatable.
I cited which dictionary and which definition. Whatever, I picked the definitions which were germain. How could using steal to mean "conduct in a clandestine manner" have /any/ relevance to you cheating people out of their hard earned money. C'mon. Maybe you're Blaster and I'm Mel Gibson and some midget is running around yelling "Who run bartertown?!?!" but I was hoping you were Tina Turner in that scenario. Guess I was wrong.
This morosophistry you have going on is reeking of emotionally disturbed teen, btw. May want to wash that off. Axe doesn't cover it up. But I digress . . . just because plagiarism is another word for "stealing ideas, credit, etc" doesn't mean it still isn't stealing. This isn't the place for an essay on language, so I will try again to communicate the concept here.
Frogboy generates 1,000 completely new ideas a year. He charges people $10 to hear one of his ideas. In any given year 1,000 people, out of 1M people in the world for this example, are exposed to Frogboy in such a fashion that they pay him $10 to hear each of his ideas. Nobody buys only some of his ideas (to keep the math simple). However, Frogboy's ideas are only good for one year because eventually anybody could come up with the same idea, and eventually Frogboy's new ideas are commonplace. Frogboy has a steady income stream of $10M a year, every year.
PattyPirate has heard some of Frogboy's ideas from previous years and thinks he's the bomb, and decides one year to buy Frogboy's ideas and share them with everybody, so she sends all of the ideas as spam. But, only 200k of the people in the world read these spam and no longer need to buy Frogboy's ideas. Statistically, 200 of Frogboy's future customers were in that group of spam readers. They don't need to pay for Frogboy's idea, Frogboy loses $2M of income from them. Moreover, Frogboy's ideas have suddenly spread more rapidly (200x faster to be exact) and will become commonplace 200x faster. Ideas which were good for a year, suddenly are only good over a weekend. So, Frogboy's $10M a year income stream is now a $40k a year income stream.
I don't think you can argue reasonably that nothing happened. Yeah, so what happened . . . clearly Patty short circuited the path in which Frogboy collects income from paying customers, I think that part is obvious. And there's a lot of yeah-yeah cost of doing business, would pirates pay anyway, etc, but that's a 20% pay hit in this example, and I doubt any real world person would ignore a 20% pay cut. I think the esoteric part is the accelerated devaluation of Frogboy's ideas, which is huge and extremely difficult to accurately measure. Where did Frogboy's ideas go? They went the exact same places they always go. That didn't change at all. Where did Frogboy's money go? It stayed in everyone's pockets, because there was no reason, besides charity, to give Frogboy the money. Who facilitated the change? Pattypirate. Where can you find a court which disagrees? No, really, where because I doubt there are any. Patty gave away that which was not hers to give.
i will sacrifice a goat if this makes more sense.
And I'm sure any other passersby ultimately see where this leads.
End of Vespucci's quote
The constructed situation you have shown is an appropriate one with several exceptions. First is the notion that the ideas are being spread, by the sender, to the receiving party without consent. No one forces somebody to pirate a game. Second is the idea that all of those who chose to pirate the game will then turn around and spread the obtained product to others.
Quoting db0, reply 22
To prove that it's stolen income, you need to prove that every downloaded copy is one lost sale. A claim that has been thoroughly debunked so good luck with that.
Ah yes, the exact letter of the law.
End of ZehDon's quote
You are forgetting the ideological differences. Many people who pirate would not otherwise purchase the title. This applies to music as well. Everybody and their mother has some form of music track downloaded onto some form of storage without paying for it. Some are justified in doing so due to availability issues but most just do it because it is free. Then of course you have others who have some form of vendetta towards media corporations, those who do not believe music should have a price tag, and etcetera.
He, unlike so many in the industry realise that a lot of people dont want to randomly hand over money for the next thing on the release charts without giving it a go first. But lets be honest, it's been over a week. If you still enjoy playing it now, buy the game.
End of angryandroid's quote
I agree.
I have yet to try the game myself but if it turns out I enjoy it I may purchase it. Of course all of that assumes a demo gets out reasonably soon...
And to those I have commented on: I doubt I'll be returning. So don't expect a response.