It's not that interesting
I've made a pretty clear explanation of why digital piracy is not theft or stealing or robbery and requested that anyone who disagrees tackle the core of my argument
So far nobody was up to the task, and there is lots of really confused and muddled sperging (as expected)
The unfortunate reality is that most people do not think clearly about such topics
That said, it is kind of funny to speak clearly and logically, only for people to lose their minds afterwards
Not my intention, but an interesting byproduct nevertheless
IP law has just always been inconsistent and non-sensical.
The basic argument always seems to be: If you download a piece of media, you have deprived the rights holder of profit and therefore it is illegal and morally wrong.
However, renting a piece of media at a video store, borrowing a copy at the library, buying a used copy, borrowing a copy from a friend, watching a movie with a friend, etc etc etc also deprives the creator of profit they would have had if you bought it, yet most would not consider any of those avenues illegal or immoral.
So then the argument becomes, "The people who purchased the original copies purchased a transferrable license", essentially arguing it is immoral to consume a piece of media without a proper license, though in reality the effect on the rights holder is the same.
Look, I'm not looking to moral grandstand here. A movie comes out I really want to see, I'll go to the theatre and watch it. If a game comes out I really want to play, I'll buy it. However, there are a lot of things that I may just kind of want to play or watch and that's where video rental stores used to come in. If I could still rent videogames anywhere locally, I would most likely never pirate a modern game that was released physically. I just don't feel like paying $80 Canadian for a 3-4 hour experience I know I'm going to be meh on but I still kind of want to try when there used to be a totally legal system to simply borrow those games for the weekend that got dismantled. If piracy were not an option, I just wouldn't bother and most likely wouldn't really care.
With regards to classic games specifically... between my Snes Classic, NES Classic, Genesis Mini, Playstation Classic, Virtual Console purchases, things like the Sega Genesis Collection for Xbox One and my collection of 70-80 physical carts for old systems, I already own a license for literally hundreds of old games. If I want to consolidate that collection into a single device, I'm going to go ahead a buy a $100 emulation handheld and download roms as opposed to paying Nintendo hundreds of dollars for a Switch and then $60 Canadian a year for Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack a year for the convenience of playing a bunch of games I already own on a single portable device. I legitimately think people who argue that is immoral are mentally retarded.
Here is the one thing I will moral fag over with regards to copyright. I think copyright lasts too long and the idea that there are works that are 50+ years old where the original creators are all dead still protected under copyright so multi billion dollar corporations can sell them to us for profit over and over again is completely and utterly asinine. I know this is somewhat subjective, but I just have the view that copyright protections being too lengthy is bad for society because it encourages the reselling of old IP as opposed to innovation and creates a lot of unnecessary artificial scarcity.
annas-archive.org
