Cia
das kwl
found it!!
<3
<3
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Yes! Oh Thank Goodness!im Back
Gotta Be A Smash Master
Hahaha, too good.![]()
Fun Fact:
NUS IS IN BRAWL.
-DD
I would say that pirating is morally wrong, but I've always found the distinction between morals and ethics hazy at best, so if you'd like to clarify your perception of the difference, I'll gladly debate it.p.s. pirating isn't morally wrong.
hey swift when did you leave?im back
gotta be a smash master
try reading the second half of the last sentence of the first paragraph >_>when you pirate stuff. your not stealing from the store, your stealing from the company who made the product
lol okit's impossible to define what is moral. half of the world thinks buttsecks is immoral, yet gays certainly don't.
Blatant lack of understanding of how retail works. Short version is, yes the company loses money.The common analogy for anti-piracy is saying it's no different from stealing. It is waaaaaay different from stealing. If a store buys x amount of games/cds/dvds from a company, and you go into that store and steal them, the store loses the money they paid for them, while the people who actually made the product lose nothing.
I can't waitPirating these same things off the internet only means you didn't give a store like this the chance to make money off of you(part1), and the people who created it didn't get anything in return for it(but should they? see part 2).
Why should anyone be allowed to sell anything ever? We shouldn't be allowed to buy food from supermarkets because they don't own the cows themselves, right?part1.
Why should stores be allowed to make huge profits off of things they didn't create?
You can buy a lot of things straight from the makers... and in fact, when you can't, it's almost strictly by design; the stores PAY the makers for the right to sell their product. If you don't buy the product from the stores, they don't buy it from the makers, and thus, the makers are losingWe can't get these things direct from the makers, so our only choice is to get reemed by stores(or pirate).
It seems weird that you appear to be aware of supply and demand, yet choose to completely ignore it. Things are more expensive at best buy because it's convenient (if you need something like that, you KNOW they will have it, while that may not be the case for costco; best buy has far more locations; best buy doesn't require a membership). If you think that's too expensive, then go buy it at costco!Here's where it gets fuzzy. I'd go into barnes and noble and see a dvd for 27$ and we'd have the SAME one at Costco for 10$. At Costco we sold the complete Sopranos boxset for $130, and best buy sells it for $300! How do you justify that? This means that stores charge virtually whatever they want for things based on how much they think they can get for it from suckers, and they factor things in like demand, for instance.
Scalping is a "problem" because there is a strictly limited quantity of tickets for any event, so when a scalper is holding it, nobody else is capable of buying it. Personally, I don't even see this as a problem, but it would only be comparable if best buy or whatever was the ONLY vendor that sold the product in questionThis is, by no coincidence, the same concept for scalping. Buying something, then selling it for a rediculously higher amount (because of demand) and profiting on something you took no part in creating. So is it moral for a store to charge an exorbitant amount of money for something they could have charged much less for? Where do you draw the line?
Even starving artists got paid for their art. They just simply don't get paid until they're done, which is not that different from your basic startup game company // music band // indie movie.Part2.
Music and Film in particular, are ART. Even though you could hardly call most film and music being made today "art", that's besides the point. Art is supposed to be free to witness to all, hence the term "starving artist."
rofl... yes you doYou don't pay money to look at a particular piece of art,
...because the RADIO STATION pays the band. SOMEBODY'S payingor to listen to the radio,
Wow, who are you to say what anyone is "supposed" to make?why should metallica be any different. Artists don't really "contribute" to society, their profession is not supposed to make millions of dollars,
If we all sat around doing ANYTHING but farming, we'd all diebut our entertainment obsessed society has changed that, unfortunatly. If everyone was an artist, nothing would get done and we would all die. If we all sat around making video games, we'd all die.
...because they have discovered // created a product that people want. Whether you personally deem that as a relevant product is a pretty ridiculous standard by which to judge whether they "deserve" to get paidThese are entertainment based things. Entertainment is not necessary for survival of the human race (certainly not britney spears new song, or Grand Theft Auto, or the next hollywood remake of a remake starring Ice Cube). Yet the people in these industries of the past many decades have been making billions and billions in sales for the crap they churn out (which is supposed to be art) and all the while not really doing anything for society. If this sounds extreme, it's because it is. ******* like britney spears and the jonas brothers are making more money than you'll ever dream of.
Maybe you're confused about what the problem with piracy is... once again, it's not up to you to decide what they deserve or need. They create a product, and thus, they are given the rights to control its distribution.Even if you become a breakthrough scientist and cure cancer, you won't make more money than Britney. It doesn't get anymore extreme than that. So when it all comes down to it, calling pirating immoral, is laughable. There are far more immoral elements at hand in the industries that we pirate from to be all hawty tawty about taking their ****. If you want to support an artist, then BUY their stuff, I DO. Go to their concerts. Musicians would still be millionaires/hundredsofthousandsaires even if all they did was perform concerts and you took away all their record sales. Great film can be made without spending 100 million dollars on CG effects, but if you want to keep seeing movies with CG, then buy 'em. I however, would be perfectly fine with film going back to what it once was. If actors won't work unless they get paid 20 million, then screw em, get a new actor that loves film for the sake of being an artist to do it.
That's not the "only" reason, though it certainly is one of them. Patents, copyrights, etc. exist because without them, people have no reason to attempt innovation since there is no reward if the next guy over can simply take your idea after you're done with no repercussionsThe only reason the government is against pirating, is because it means you didn't pay sales tax.
oh my god manSame with prostitution.
Yeah, I thought you said your brother was going to it? I forget...it is at that LAN center that just opened...there is a thread somewhere!there's a tournament in storrs? >_______________> oops.
Blatant lack of understanding of how retail works. Short version is, yes the company loses money.
I worked at filenes for 3 years, and costco for 6 years, pretty sure i know more about retail than you my friend.[/I]
Why should anyone be allowed to sell anything ever? We shouldn't be allowed to buy food from supermarkets because they don't own the cows themselves, right?
I love statements like this, in fact this is why i hate debating online, cuz people like pockyD like to take a statement like this one and make the author associate it to EVERYTHING. First of all pocky, I said HUGE PROFITS, grocery stores don't make 1,000 percent increases on food. Try sticking to the subject here, which is pirateable goods, cds, dvds, and games.
You can buy a lot of things straight from the makers... and in fact, when you can't, it's almost strictly by design; the stores PAY the makers for the right to sell their product. If you don't buy the product from the stores, they don't buy it from the makers, and thus, the makers are losing
Oh, really, so I can buy Britneys next album from her then. Can you get me Peter Jacksons phone number so I can ask him for a copy of his next movie. Really though, so if we don't let stores make exorbitant profit off of people who make an exorbitant amount of money doing essencially nothing of importance, then that makes us immoral? Good job!
It seems weird that you appear to be aware of supply and demand, yet choose to completely ignore it. Things are more expensive at best buy stop right there, things at best buy are not always more expensive than at costco, my point was to single out a particular instance of one store taking advantage of people with a particular itembecause it's convenient (if you need something like that, you KNOW they will have it, while that may not be the case for costco; best buy has far more locations; best buy doesn't require a membership). If you think that's too expensive, then go buy it at costco!I care not about debating sales tips, i'm debating MORALITY(remember?)
Of COURSE stores set whatever prices they want! They also know if they set it "too" high, people won't buy itis $170 higher enough? Cuz that was my point, they won't make money, and they go out of business. They aren't hoping to make enough to buy the new york yankees every time you buy a DVD.
Your use of the term "suckers" is rather childish... some people are WILLING to pay more for it at best buy because, for example, they can get it now instead of waiting for it to come in the mail after a week. Maybe, like I said above, they want to KNOW that they only need to go to one location to find what they need. Maybe they want the best buy reward points. Who cares? The point is, it's not the producer's fault that the consumer may or may not choose to pay more. I'll set a bear trap, it's not my fault if you step in it
Scalping is a "problem" because there is a strictly limited quantity of tickets for any event, so when a scalper is holding it, nobody else is capable of buying it. Personally, I don't even see this as a problem, but it would only be comparable if best buy or whatever was the ONLY vendor that sold the product in questionyou clearly don't see anything wrong with taking advantage of people, funny, since this debate is about MORALITY.
and OF COURSE they could've charged less. We could give away everything for free, do away with the currency system, and live in a socialist paradise. Do you think that's realistic? (really, do you?)FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION IT! The MONETARY system is crap and not only shouldn't exist, but the one we have is immoral, unethical, and insane. But for now, let's just stick with my original complaint which was that companies don't have to **** people, but they do anyway because they just don't care, more money for them, right?
Even starving artists got paid for their art. They just simply don't get paid until they're done, which is not that different from your basic startup game company // music band // indie movie.
wait? i just realized you disagreed with every statement i made...LITERALLY. So there's no point in my continuing this debate with you. I don't have the patience to type this much crap, i'm just not half the nerd of you, i can't do it folks. Sorry i even wrote this much.
The "essay" was about morality >_>great success! i got the nerd accusation from the guy typing up an essay about consumerism at 8 pm on friday night on a video game forum (and who is proud of spending 6 years at costco? really?)
i'll accept your ad hominem as a concession of defeat
ahem...Btw, gay buttsecks is not gay unless you're gay.
it's only not gay if you say no homoyou guys don't understand
no homo is the ultimate get out of gay free card
i could bust into dustin's house, **** him in the *** while giving him a reach around and thinking of cactuar having sex with keanu reeves.
no homo
NO LONGER GAY
have a good day guysi'll respond on monday if i remember
yeah, okay pal
note: i'm not surprised that the reply was either "well i'm off to **** some *****es" or "i'm off to get wasted off my ***"
good one, doesn't change the fact that that's what i did.
i'm not the one that introduced the nerd accusation
you're right. but me calling you a nerd.....ON A VIDEO GAME FORUM is nothing. i'm here too which means that i'm a nerd too. it's like Rick James calling Charlie Murphy darkness, so coming from a nerd it shouldn't have been too offensive, and it really wasn't meant to be personal. However your remark about my job was unacceptable and (attempted to be) way below the belt.
edit: yes I AM a nerd and i like smash, but i don't like writing essays when i'm not at work