Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not really, and you continue to evade the question, of where does the line of logic end?

Do you seriously not know what the slippery slope fallacy is? Thats it. Right there.

If someone has more money than you (in this instance, record or movie execs) you feel that they can be essentially ripped off. Where does this end with you.

The stapler? You think I'm some sort of samurai who lives his life by a finely codified series of well written examples on how to act? You want to give me a series of situations and I can say yes or no?

It's not a slippery slope fallacy I'm suggesting. I'm asking an honest, open question. At what point do you find obtaining goods without paying for them questionable?

You set the parameters of what you find acceptable and why you find it so, I'm asking what makes you stop there.

Just answer the bloody question.

Damn this popcorn is good.

Paxman is my middle name.

Mr Mystery gets a gold star!

Mr Mystery wrote:It's not a slippery slope fallacy I'm suggesting. I'm asking an honest, open question. At what point do you find obtaining goods without paying for them questionable?

You set the parameters of what you find acceptable and why you find it so, I'm asking what makes you stop there.

Just answer the bloody question.

You just asked me a question with an infinite number of answers that are all situationally dependent. I'm not gonna do that. Learn to ask questions that can be answered, you asked a rhetorical one or at the very worst a question that you truly think I can actually answer. As if I know what I would do in every conceivable situation and am willing to post thousands of pages of text here for your amusement. Please ask questions with specifics, I don't have sit here and entertain you, i'm doing it of my own free will.

Entertaining none the less!

Would you take someones car because you feel they have enough money not to miss it.

Would you take someones book because you feel they are successful enough.

And so on. Or perhaps you aren't comfortable answering the question? So where do you draw the line?

At the part where I can do it with a click of a mouse without a chance of getting busted.

Stop repeating yourself.

Would you take someones car because you feel they have enough money not to miss it.

No.

Would you take someones book because you feel they are successful enough.

Depends on the book, my location, my opinion of the person, and my likelihood of getting caught.

And so on. Or perhaps you aren't comfortable answering the question?

No, I'm pretty comfortable, you're just an awful questioner who doesn't want real answers. Thats sort of been the zeitgeist of this thread from the beginning though, hasn't it?

At least you're honest. You do it because you can, and wouldn't if you thought you'd get caught.

Shuma, you however appear to have supplied your own moral justification, and that begs deeper exploration.

Mr Mystery wrote:At least you're honest. You do it because you can, and wouldn't if you thought you'd get caught.

Shuma, you however appear to have supplied your own moral justification, and that begs deeper exploration.

I'm a moral relativist who doesn't believe that modern capitalist property laws are inherently moral and I find that such moral issues exist purely on a case by case basis. Magic. Try not to hurt yourself considering that.

With the use of inane questiosn, huzzah!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:At least you're honest. You do it because you can, and wouldn't if you thought you'd get caught.

Shuma, you however appear to have supplied your own moral justification, and that begs deeper exploration.

I'm a moral relativist who doesn't believe that modern capitalist property laws are inherently moral and I find that such moral issues exist purely on a case by case basis. Magic. Try not to hurt yourself considering that.

So it's okay as long as you say it is? Or have you not really thought your stand point through? Again, if I don't want to give someone my money, I don't give them my money. I don't then take whatever good/service I would have paid for. I go without. If I want it, I will find it at a price I find acceptable, or again go without.

(hassle)Free is an acceptable price.

If they are offering their services for free, yes it is.

But free is so rarely the actual price.

So it's okay as long as you say it is?

Thats how morals work brosky, short of god there is no arbiter of our actions but ourselves.

Or have you not really thought your stand point through?

This is a mind bogglingly inane question. You're basically asking me if I have a plan for what I would do in every event that could ever occur. The answer is clearly no. If this is your standard then you are certainly as guilty as I.

Again, if I don't want to give someone my money, I don't give them my money. I don't then take whatever good/service I would have paid for. I go without. If I want it, I will find it at a price I find acceptable, or again go without.

I don't remember asking or caring for your opinion concerning the situation, but since you chose to give it heres a question. Have you ever borrowed a cd, rented a game, bought a used game, or watched a movie a friend rented?

No, Yes, Yes, and Yes in that order. See, answering questions is easy.

Not that into music, so I don't have much of a collection. Renting Games - I have to trust the place I hire it from has paid for it through the proper channels, like the DVDs. Buying a used game...only on Console. Don't do much PC Gaming, and when I do it's first hand. And yes I have, again trusting that the source of the rental has paid for the requisite license.

Soladrin is pretty honest , i give him that.

No, Yes, Yes, and Yes in that order. See, answering questions is easy.

Game rentals, used games, and viewing content rented by others is functionally identical to pirating said content. The creators do not receive any money, you are enjoying the content they labored to make. You are paying a middle man who makes his salary on "cheating" these companies of their "hard earned dollars". You are every bit as guilty of "cheating the artists" as I am, especially with buying used games. A racket that the game industry has been trying to shut down for decades precisely because it is no different from pirating their games from the standpoint of the game companies themselves.

Not that into music, so I don't have much of a collection. Renting Games - I have to trust the place I hire it from has paid for it through the proper channels, like the DVDs. Buying a used game...only on Console. Don't do much PC Gaming, and when I do it's first hand. And yes I have, again trusting that the source of the rental has paid for the requisite license.

I don't think you understand how rental places or content licensing works.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Shuma Gorath wrote:Have you ever borrowed a cd, rented a game, bought a used game, or watched a movie a friend rented?

...yes...

Why do you hate the artists MM? Why are you taking their hard earned money? How is Tyler Perry supposed to feed his boyfriend, or Britney Spears get that new reality show she deserves? Thief!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Game rentals, used games, and viewing content rented by others is functionally identical to pirating said content. The creators do not receive any money, you are enjoying the content they labored to make. You are paying a middle man who makes his salary on "cheating" these companies of their "hard earned dollars"..

But... the creator did receive money when the rental companies first purchased the copies no?

And the gaming companies , surely they take into account gaming rental is a legit business? where a business of pirating games is not?

Of course i can be wrong though.

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Game rentals, used games, and viewing content rented by others is functionally identical to pirating said content. The creators do not receive any money, you are enjoying the content they labored to make. You are paying a middle man who makes his salary on "cheating" these companies of their "hard earned dollars"..

But... the creator did receive money when the rental companies first purchased the copies no?

And the gaming companies , surely they take into account gaming rental is a legit business? where a business of pirating games is not?

Of course i can be wrong though.

The creator rarely receives money from rentals, that is purely the purview of the distribution company, unlike direct purchases or theatre views. This is contract dependent though. As for gaming companies, as I've said, they've been trying to get rentals to become illegitimate for decades. They are tantamount to piracy from a financial perspective, the gaming company receives virtually nothing. Keep in mind, the US has very different rental laws then the Europe or Japan and the rental industry has been in steep decline for a while as companies continually introduce disincentives for rental (like game codes, one time dlc, and multiplayer suites attached to the registered account of the first logged in player).

This is the problem with taking a moral stand in copyright and entertainment business. It's functionally amoral. It doesn't work in a fashion that respects or cares about the functions of modern capitalist morals, as if such things even exist.

I don't think we have rentals for games here. We used to back in my ps1 days.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Game rentals, used games, and viewing content rented by others is functionally identical to pirating said content. The creators do not receive any money, you are enjoying the content they labored to make. You are paying a middle man who makes his salary on "cheating" these companies of their "hard earned dollars"..

But... the creator did receive money when the rental companies first purchased the copies no?

And the gaming companies , surely they take into account gaming rental is a legit business? where a business of pirating games is not?

Of course i can be wrong though.

The creator rarely receives money from rentals, that is purely the purview of the distribution company, unlike direct purchases or theatre views. This is contract dependent though. As for gaming companies, as I've said, they've been trying to get rentals to become illegitimate for decades. They are tantamount to piracy from a financial perspective, the gaming company receives virtually nothing. Keep in mind, the US has very different rental laws then the Europe or Japan and the rental industry has been in steep decline for a while as companies continually introduce disincentives for rental (like game codes, one time dlc, and multiplayer suites attached to the registered account of the first logged in player).

This is the problem with taking a moral stand in copyright and entertainment business. It's functionally amoral. It doesn't work in a fashion that respects or cares about the functions of modern capitalist morals, as if such things even exist.

So in other words when companies ****s over the creators , it makes it ok when us down the chain , ***s over the companies that ****ed the creator.

Robin Hood? hes still a thief. We arnt debating whether or not hes good or not , hes still a thief.

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Game rentals, used games, and viewing content rented by others is functionally identical to pirating said content. The creators do not receive any money, you are enjoying the content they labored to make. You are paying a middle man who makes his salary on "cheating" these companies of their "hard earned dollars"..

But... the creator did receive money when the rental companies first purchased the copies no?

And the gaming companies , surely they take into account gaming rental is a legit business? where a business of pirating games is not?

Of course i can be wrong though.

The creator rarely receives money from rentals, that is purely the purview of the distribution company, unlike direct purchases or theatre views. This is contract dependent though. As for gaming companies, as I've said, they've been trying to get rentals to become illegitimate for decades. They are tantamount to piracy from a financial perspective, the gaming company receives virtually nothing. Keep in mind, the US has very different rental laws then the Europe or Japan and the rental industry has been in steep decline for a while as companies continually introduce disincentives for rental (like game codes, one time dlc, and multiplayer suites attached to the registered account of the first logged in player).

This is the problem with taking a moral stand in copyright and entertainment business. It's functionally amoral. It doesn't work in a fashion that respects or cares about the functions of modern capitalist morals, as if such things even exist.

So in other words when companies ****s over the creators , it makes it ok when us down the chain , ***s over the companies that ****ed the creator.

Robin Hood? hes still a thief. We arnt debating whether or not hes good or not , hes still a thief.

Except as has been stated repeatedly. Digital Download Copyright Infringement isn't theft. It's a new form of crime that wasn't possible 30 years ago. Please try to keep the feth up. Its annoying.

I'm saddened by the lack of parrots, cutlasses, and buxom maidens in the thread. Tease!

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Game rentals, used games, and viewing content rented by others is functionally identical to pirating said content. The creators do not receive any money, you are enjoying the content they labored to make. You are paying a middle man who makes his salary on "cheating" these companies of their "hard earned dollars"..

But... the creator did receive money when the rental companies first purchased the copies no?

And the gaming companies , surely they take into account gaming rental is a legit business? where a business of pirating games is not?

Of course i can be wrong though.

The creator rarely receives money from rentals, that is purely the purview of the distribution company, unlike direct purchases or theatre views. This is contract dependent though. As for gaming companies, as I've said, they've been trying to get rentals to become illegitimate for decades. They are tantamount to piracy from a financial perspective, the gaming company receives virtually nothing. Keep in mind, the US has very different rental laws then the Europe or Japan and the rental industry has been in steep decline for a while as companies continually introduce disincentives for rental (like game codes, one time dlc, and multiplayer suites attached to the registered account of the first logged in player).

This is the problem with taking a moral stand in copyright and entertainment business. It's functionally amoral. It doesn't work in a fashion that respects or cares about the functions of modern capitalist morals, as if such things even exist.

So in other words when companies ****s over the creators , it makes it ok when us down the chain , ***s over the companies that ****ed the creator.

Robin Hood? hes still a thief. We arnt debating whether or not hes good or not , hes still a thief.

Except as has been stated repeatedly. Digital Download Copyright Infringement isn't theft. It's a new form of crime that wasn't possible 30 years ago. Please try to keep the

Spoiler:

fu ck

up. Its annoying.

To be fair i already mentioned that back in page 3.

LunaHound wrote:@Mel Really? Hmmm i think piracy is still stealing in the way that its taking away the revenue of a possible sale away from the artist / company of. For example dling mp3 instead of buying the album CD.

While i believe you are right the actual law favors your explanation, i think laws are made to protect us... and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

Then you should probably stop using it to justify yourself if you know its incorrect. Also, everyone knows what feth is censoring, its censored for a reason.

Game companies do not like Used game sales and aren't super keen on rentals. Rentals used to work a bit differently than they do now and the field is still adjusting. Movie companies weren't to keen on rentals but the way it worked was that they would give the rental locations the movies before public release but they paid a premium for it. Rental films were $80-100 instead of the $15-20 purchase price at retail a month or so later. If game companies could do away with rentals they would. They have tried in the past to find ways around (or get rid of all together) the secondary market ala Gamestop/Electronics Boutique, ect. It has been illegal to rent games in Japan since the days of the NES. It was only a few years ago Japan tried outlaw the sale of used consoles (Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law). Actually it succeeded but 3rd party companies came up with work-arounds. Obliviously not everyone shares you "it's ok to steal" philosophy". Japan certainly doesn't.