There is literally nothing hypocritical or asinine about it.

You don't need video games, so you shouldn't get them for free.

You need food, so you should get it for free. Not complicated.

Quote from: Vien on September 30, 2017, 05:46:17 PM

YouTube

Gotta love the desperate attempts by pirates to paint their activities as something positive that a video like this has to be made.

I felt that it belonged here for discussion value.

Quote from: Verbatim on September 30, 2017, 09:27:47 PM

There is literally nothing hypocritical or asinine about it.

You don't need video games, so you shouldn't get them for free.

You need food, so you should get it for free. Not complicated.

Self actualization is the apex of Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, though.

the idea behind the hierarchy of needs is that you can only achieve self-actualization once all the other needs have been fulfilled, starting with basic physiological needs (food clothing shelter) at the very bottom, not because they're the least important, but because they're the most important

but i'm sure you understand that, which makes your response confusing

Quote from: Verbatim on October 02, 2017, 02:02:20 AM

Quote from: Turkey on October 02, 2017, 01:36:53 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 30, 2017, 09:27:47 PM

There is literally nothing hypocritical or asinine about it.

You don't need video games, so you shouldn't get them for free.

You need food, so you should get it for free. Not complicated.

Self actualization is the apex of Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, though.

the idea behind the hierarchy of needs is that you can only achieve self-actualization once all the other needs have been fulfilled, starting with basic physiological needs (food clothing shelter) at the very bottom, not because they're the least important, but because they're the most important

but i'm sure you understand that, which makes your response confusing

Yeah I'm pretty tired and just meant it to be smarmy. I concur that video games should not be free; I'm more concerned with the compensation of the creator than the payment of the user, if that makes sense at all.

When it comes down to it though, the vast majority of pirates would sooner go without altogether than pay for what they're downloading.

So, from a material standpoint, the result nets zero.

Quote from: Ossus on October 02, 2017, 04:52:23 AM

Quote from: Turkey on October 02, 2017, 04:38:39 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 02, 2017, 02:02:20 AM

Quote from: Turkey on October 02, 2017, 01:36:53 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 30, 2017, 09:27:47 PM

There is literally nothing hypocritical or asinine about it.

You don't need video games, so you shouldn't get them for free.

You need food, so you should get it for free. Not complicated.

Self actualization is the apex of Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, though.

the idea behind the hierarchy of needs is that you can only achieve self-actualization once all the other needs have been fulfilled, starting with basic physiological needs (food clothing shelter) at the very bottom, not because they're the least important, but because they're the most important

but i'm sure you understand that, which makes your response confusing

Yeah I'm pretty tired and just meant it to be smarmy. I concur that video games should not be free; I'm more concerned with the compensation of the creator than the payment of the user, if that makes sense at all.

When it comes down to it though, the vast majority of pirates would sooner go without altogether than pay for what they're downloading.

So, from a material standpoint, the result nets zero.

But is that because they already have the luxury of easy access to that free content? It's easy to say, "I only pirate what I wouldn't buy", but if you removed piracy as a means to get games, how many do you think would fall back to finding deals online, like CD keys, steam, Humble Bundle, etc.? How many do you think would outright just accept paying full price to continue their favorite hobby? Probably a large percentage.

I don't know about that.
The torrenting community is strange, to say the least.

There's almost something lackadaisical to their consumption of media. It's a lot like shopping at the dollar store. Like, "I'm here for whatever's getting seeded today, mainly because I'm bored."

At the end of the day there's an ocean of content that's free by design, and pirates would probably just turn there.

A large number never actually money to spend anyway, so they're not buying anything.

I'm not saying piracy is positive, but it's often altogether benign.

Why defend piracy

who cares about being a good person

Tangent, but what is the practical difference between recording something on DVR or even old-school VHS, and piracy? Is it because the show is readily available on some medium that you already have access to, such as cable or public channels? In that case, would that mean I have a right via fair use to pirate any show or movie that I'd have access to on whatever channels I subscribe to, like cable or HBO? Maybe someone would argue that it's the scale that is important, but one act of file sharing is as illegal as 1,000.

DVR/VHS recordings are for personal use; it only becomes piracy when you start distributing it to others.

Quote from: Verbatim on October 05, 2017, 07:46:40 PM

Quote from: Turkey on October 05, 2017, 07:22:31 PM

Tangent, but what is the practical difference between recording something on DVR or even old-school VHS, and piracy? Is it because the show is readily available on some medium that you already have access to, such as cable or public channels? In that case, would that mean I have a right via fair use to pirate any show or movie that I'd have access to on whatever channels I subscribe to, like cable or HBO? Maybe someone would argue that it's the scale that is important, but one act of file sharing is as illegal as 1,000.

DVR/VHS recordings are for personal use; it only becomes an issue when you start distributing it to others.

This goes back to many pirates' legal defense that downloading is fine, and the real issue is uploading. Ignoring the fact that leeching typically requires seeding, if a person downloads a movie but never distributes it, has that he/she done anything wrong, and how is that different from a DVR?

Mostly asking your opinion, since I don't expect you to research the legal explanation of it.

Personally, I don't really see any legal or moral issues with downloading shit for personal use, so long as you've already paid for the original copy (first and foremost), and you do not plan on distributing it to anyone else.

Pirates do neither.

Band manager literally encouraged me to pirate his music since they make almost nothing from albums. Pirating his band's music spreads popularity more so than harming them. Current day musicians use their music for soundtracks or other applications, since they make a small cut every time someone clicks on said video or app.

Quote from: Verbatim on September 23, 2017, 02:47:03 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 23, 2017, 02:45:33 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 23, 2017, 02:05:13 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 23, 2017, 02:02:24 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 23, 2017, 01:46:04 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 23, 2017, 01:42:55 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 23, 2017, 01:11:44 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 23, 2017, 01:03:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 23, 2017, 01:00:59 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 23, 2017, 12:57:58 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 23, 2017, 12:49:36 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on September 23, 2017, 12:46:08 PM

There's nothing wrong with emulating old games

Yes there is, especially if they were just rereleased (like Pokémon Gold/Silver).

Why should you buy the remaster (or whatever this is I don't care about Pokémon) instead of emulating it?

Because then you'd be a thief and a bad person. You're not supporting the company that produced the game, and you no longer have the excuse of "it's an old game that they're not profiting from anymore."

But they're just rehashing an old game. I don't really see how they deserve the money that badly.

They're not just rehashing an old game. They're putting it on a modern device with newer and more reliable technology that's less likely to fail on you. The games I'm talking about are so old, they were on these big cartridges that had little batteries inside of them that are only designed to last a few years before they burn out. Once it burns out, you can no longer save your game anymore and it's basically just worthless.

Replacing these batteries is expensive and dangerous, because it requires you to know how to use a soldering iron if you want to do the job right, and even if you still have a working battery, it's gonna die again eventually and there's no way to transfer your Pokémon to newer generations like you can with every subsequent game. Gold/Silver were the only generation of Pokémon games up until now that didn't let you do that, because there wasn't a way to connect a Game Boy to a Game Boy Advance.

Re-releasing the games on 3DS solves all of these problems.

They're also only $10 and if you can't spare that much for such an excellent game, you're really just a pathetic waste of skin.

So after paying for the game and being boned by substandard technology, you're gonna buy it again? Why not emulate it?

Not "substandard" technology, outdated technology.

Because it's a fucking amazing game that Game Freak deserves billions of dollars for making.

I'd buy both versions 30 more times.

I don't emulate games ever because I'm not a piece of shit.

Seems like a lot of fanboying tbb. It's substandard technology to have it run on batteries that aren't easily replaceable.

Not if they last nearly a decade. People weren't even 100% sure video games would still be around in that long.

I know you're slightly stupid, but come on.

So they planned for failure and the industry collapsing within a decade?

Welcome to reality.

And yes, they do deserve money. I'll buy 100 copies every day.

>hates capitalism
>openly shills for a broken copyright system designed to protect big corporations and the capitalist status quo.

I'm not "openly shilling" for it. I'm saying "this is the system that you all want, so this is the system that you should get."

If you don't like this system, feel free to reject it and become a socialist, That would be the most intelligent way to respond to the problem. But either way, wanting to change the law doesn't give you the right to break the current law.

Nobody hates the fact that I have to buy stuff more than I do, but that still doesn't give me the right to be a thief, and that doesn't mean that people shouldn't receive compensation for their work of some form in an economic climate where you NEED compensation just to fucking survive. It's stupid, but that's the way it is, and that's the way capitalists like you want it. So good job making it so fucking difficult for everybody else, and pulling the hypocrisy or shill card on any socialist who tries to peacefully coexist with you by acquiescing to your godawful system while openly protesting it.