Not really, the topic is still idiocy.
Someone needs to learn something about ecology here. Or maybe you just look at a map and search for forests...
I don't even play trivia games and I know vastly more than needed to just guess that trees outnumber people by a factorial. The estimated tree count as of 2007 was ~8 trillion. Get over it.
How do you know that you dont hurt someone by breaking copyright? Maybe you wouldnt have bought the game anyway but you never know if someone who downloaded the cracked version from you would have paid if he didnt found your pirated version. Also its very easy to say that afterwards.
And even the disrespect towards copyrights hurts everyone protected by these laws.
Ok, the second part of this is just crap. If I piss on a copy of the local regs, no one gives a shit. If they do give a shit, it's their own fucking problem for being anal. Law, civil law in particular, is not some sacred thing. In most cases, it's a pile of crap written by idiots. This country was founded because of stupid laws pissing people off.
The first part is the summation of my argument. Just replace do with don't. For all you know, someone died today because of something you did or didn't do. Maybe you smiled at a pretty girl, got her distracted, and she was hit by a bus later. Fact is relevant, wishful thinking is irrelevant. You can't prove that internet piracy harms developers. You can't even prove that it costs them profits. All you can do is prove that people who didn't buy the game are still getting to play anyway. Until that changes, the copyright argument is a bunch of whiners trying to force something on the rest of society with no regard for the unintended side effects.
The music industry boomed when Napster was letting people "steal" their music on a massive scale. The logic is simple, it's as close to scientific fact as psychology gets. A person is more likely to purchase something when they have had some level of interaction with it before hand. This is why demo's exist, why songs are played across the airwaves, why samples are given away for new products in stores, why people bother to advertise in the first place. It's not an either or scenario and you're going to have to get over that minor detail if you ever want to be even marginally intelligent in your arguments.
Because its maybe not your property? It doesnt matter how old it is.
So what gives you the right to write in english? I think you should have to come up with your own language, since the fact that it's been around for centuries and achieved saturation long ago is irrelevant.
You think in this little box that says "someone owns this because they say so" and completely ignore reality. The only reason someone owns Elvis' music is because that someone and a few other someones bribed a bunch of congressmen with the money they were making off of their copyright holdings they had nothing to do with creating in the first place. Copyright is arbitrary.
Lol? Giving away illegal copies software for free to people who could have buyed it otherwise does not hurt the game producer??
Could is not would. Could is could.
I could go buy a lottery ticket tomorrow, hit the jackpot, become a millionaire overnight, and buy a thousand games by Christmas. I could start shitting gold bricks instead, that's probably more likely. Would you guess that the odds are perhaps against either situation? My Christmas budget is looking to be about $400 to spread around my relatives, I can probably afford to make another purchase this year for myself without adding difficulty to my shopping task. Even if I go scrooge and send them coal instead, at max I'd buy around 10 games.
Reality is that I will make no more game purchases this year. It's not a maybe, it doesn't hinge on the availability of the products, there's nothing significantly attractive enough to make me tighten my budgetary constraints. If, tomorrow, I get a thousand games off the internet, who have I harmed? No lost sales, not even potential lost sales. Someone in return for nothing, with niether intent nor ability to procure it by other means regardless of the alternative. The worst case scenario for the game developer in such a case is that none of the games I take interest me enough to go out and buy them.
[quote]As if something forces you to buy their products...and if you cannot resist pirating it instead you should rather go to some therapy since you are obviously addicted.[quote]
Congratulations, you just wiped out copyright enforcement. Targetted discrimination against a mental illness violates anti-discrimination laws!
Logic and fact do not support the claim that piracy is harming the industry, shoving a stick up my ass does however. I've already blacklisted two game companies for giving me shit, and I'll buy Sony music when hell freezes over.
Now, you could argue that the kids weren't going to buy the candy anyway, so mimicking Jesus didn't hurt the candy industry, but it seems pretty clear to me which scenario has the most potential for harm.
Exactly, piracy has potential for harm. As does every activity one does. You could kill yourself sitting up in the morning, break a clot loose and give yourself a heart attack. Going jogging to avoid the heart attack could burst a defective blood vessel in your brain. You could kill a whole bunch of people by driving a car and having an accident through no fault of your own. Will you get up and go about your life tomorrow morning? Potentially, thousands of people will be depressed by this paragraph and end their own lives in despair!
Potential is what kids have before they go through public school. Prove it.
It isn't if you own the thing you are trying to sell. You'll only run into problems if someone else does, in which case you really shouldn't be selling it in the first place.
You mean the item that I manufacture and distribute myself yet magically belongs to someone else because they bought an expiring copyright and bribed people to change the laws for them later? Yeah, it sucks, but you're not as dumb as bodyless so you might figure this out eventually.
1) If someone is actually that committed to fairness, they deserve your respect, not an argument about why they should remove said footwear from their rectum
Or maybe they deserve a straight jacket?
2) While this metaphor may be applicable to some DRM schemes, it has nothing to do with copyright in general unless you consider paying for a product to be a form of torture.
A matter of scale. $20 for a 40 year old movie, that, by original intent, should be public domain available for anyone to reproduce and costs cents to recreate, is an obscenity. With the original intent, we'd have remastered versions of Star Wars that don't have stupid horse shit like Han Solo waiting for the bounty hunter to shoot first. Competing remastered versions, the remastered copy would be copyrighted after all.
The potential effect of piracy is always being dragged about despite the evidence that says otherwise, yet the potential effect of copyright laws are irrelevant and have no bearing. Is that about right?
You don't like the product, you don't get it. You don't like the company, don't buy from them. The solution is that simple. Not wanting to get something from its owner does not mean someone is required to get it from another source. If pirating a game really doesn't affect the game industry, then a boycott is just as good a protest as pirating.
Oddly enough, that's exactly the case, I boycott companies that piss me off. Weird huh?
That last sentence of yours is just perfect. Think about it a while, you should be able to figure it out.