600
Can't have it both ways
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
600 points (97.3% liked)
Memes
55653 readers
1151 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't follow this as a justification for piracy. Piracy isn't stealing but, assuming if it was not possible to pirate you were going to pay for the game, you are still causing the person who owns the game to lose money they would have otherwise gained.
My justification is much simpler: capitalists suck, buying games supports capitalists so I'm keeping my money.
Personally, If its not possible to pirate something I just forget about it until it is
Sonic Frontiers my beloved.
This is me tbh. I don't value video games as part of my life to the extent that I will pay 70 dollars (or really almost any dollars) for 99% of them. I already don't do that for games that have/had Denuvo that took years to crack. I just forgot about them and did something else. I'd probably just read more books if I couldn't pirate games because I'm not spending that much of my income on them.
It's also the same argument that record companies tried to use for the last few decades when a majority of the piracy stats were from countries you couldn't even buy their albums or it was prohibitively expensive to do so. Avatar (the blue one) was the most pirated movie of all time at the same time as it was the highest grossing movie of all time. One download = one lost sale has never been true.
That's not a reasonable assumption at all.
Sometimes people can't afford the extortionate game prices and thus wouldn't be bying them no matter what.
Other times, such as with the Denuvo DRM monstrosity or draconian anticheat systems on single player modes, pirated copies are better than bought ones.
And, as you say yourself, sometimes you just don't want to support the capitalists ruining games in order to squeeze every possible cent of profit out of them regardless of what that means for the quality of games and treatment of gamers.
In that case piracy is fully justified. If you wouldn't have bought it if piracy wasn't an option then I have no issues.
Bottom two reasons: yeah fuck DRM and capitalism. I didn't say I'm against pirating, I just need to find the logical justification :)
If you want to play a game - pay the owner.
If you can't afford it - don't pirate it. It's not yours.
Upd: Wow, there are a lot of freeloaders in this thread.
Paying the creator I understand, but what is this "pay the owner"?
Creators often sell rights to their game in exchange for money then and there. So creators are not anyways owners.
If you can't afford it then pirate it. There is no victim so I really see 0 reason not to.
"it's not yours" is not valid. Who owns it then? Disney? Why does Disney deserve to own it any more than you? They didn't put in any work to make it, the actors, directors, vfx artists, writers, producers, camera people, etc etc made the film. How come they don't own any of it?
Huh? The legal system would politely disagree.
For the USA look it up in the USPTO database (USPTO = United States Patent and Trademark Office) or in game's EULA.
You specifically chose one sentence from my argument and anilised that while ignoring all of the context around it.
Do you understand there is a difference between what is legal and what is ethical and sometimes the law can be unfair or unethical?
I still dont see any issues in a victimless crime.
Two sentences.
And I find copyright infringement still unethical. Because you are taking what's not yours, and the thing you're taking - is not some vital resource type you're taking out of desperation. It's a game.
I stand corrected.
But does the legal owner deserve to own it and profit off it? Again I ask you, do you understand the difference between what is ethical and what is legal.
Piracy extends to all forms of media and software, not just games. I believe media is still incredibly important to a persons development. Media in all forms is a way to learn from other people and create a deeper understanding of how the world works. And taking that away from something because they don't have the means to access it legally is not right. On top of this people deserve to have fun, and taking away peoples opportunity to have fun just because they don't have the means to access it legally is also not right.
What is ethical to one - isn't for another. That's why we have a legal system.
Who will pay for game development and distribution?
So we should just accept the law as it is and assume the law is always right? Im here to debate ethics and question the law. Arent you here to do the same?
We have already stated that they can't afford to by the game and therefore wont be buying the game no matter what. Regardless of weather they pirate the game or not no money is going to the game license owner.
So to answer your question who will pay for development and distribution? Not this person.
Yes. And to change the law you should vote and press your representative to change the laws.
It's pointless, because the legal system is governed by laws, not by our conversation.
Do you find it fair, that someone should pay, but not "this person"?
Look I'm sorry I don't have the time or patience to deal with this level of ignorance. You should really read a book or go talk to a homeless person to find out how liberal political systems really work.
A game is not some vital thing, like air, food or home.
Piracy is stealing and stealing is good.
theft definition
It's hard for me to say weather this definition encompasses piracy or not. Although I would err to the side of piracy not being stealing, since media isn't physical.