LogFAQs > #907050241

Tyranthraxus posted...

Morally that is a different story as academia, journals, and textbooks are mired in controversy, shoddy ethics, and elitism. Nintendo isn't really the same thing as academic journals. They don't make their publications exclusive. Their games are available for anyone to purchase. Their products are all luxury items. There is no shortage of competition.

I mean, I think all of that applies to IP in general. Not specifically video games though to be fair

Tyranthraxus posted...

I mean if you're going to use the "I'm not harming Nintendo because it's just $20" then the reverse, taking $20 from Cliffy B. as his company was tanking hardcore after the Lawbreakers flop follows is significant harm. In that sense, taking $20 from people who are already unethically inflating prices and blocking otherwise unlimited information behind a veil of academic elitism is also not comparable.

That's not my contention, my contention is that a loss of a potential sale isn't the same thing as material theft, which to me seems obvious both from legal and moral standpoints (even if you think it's immoral, very few people conflate piracy and theft)

I agree that either way the potential harm you inflict is contingent on things like that. But I don't agree with that the situation in bold is so different from general IP regulations the way that you do.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Likewise, pirating Seiken Densetsu 3 has a different connotation from pirating "Picle Ricc" the latter of which is a shoddy asset flip that barely works as a game and is primarily designed to fuck with some Steam algorithms to generate market items and scam the market out of some money and was banned from Steam shortly after its release.

I agree with that, too.
---

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.