Morally, piracy is basically* equivalent to theft. It is morally objectionable. It’s true today, it was true in the napster/limewire era of “I’d buy it if they’d sell me mp3s but since they dont...” (which isn’t that different an argument than “I just want to play Zelta if Nintendo would release it on Steam I’d buy it…

Your phone telling you where you are is very different than your phone telling someone else where you are.

I’m not sure I agree with your perceived “endpoint of piracy.” Take two other industries ravaged by piracy: movies and music. Both experimented heavily with obnoxious DRM that ultimately did little to affect piracy (because as game makers have found, once you release the DRM, it’s only a matter of time before it’s…

About half their revenue is from hardware sales, so presumably if they lose all that money, they have half the resources to make great software (ok, somewhat more than that as they would no longer have hardware R&D costs). And while they have lagged recently, I think they are still innovating more in the hardware…

You may not be aware of these things called “laptops” which are portable, but they are a thing that exist and could be used to play this game.

If Nintendo released PC ports (or PS/Xbox ports) of their marquee titles they’d never sell another unit of hardware again.

You’re begging the question with the parenthetical final sentence. If piracy meant we wouldn’t get good games in the future, then how come we keep getting new games? Arguably there are more exceptional games now than ever before, and likely more piracy too. I’m not saying piracy leads to good games, I’m saying the…

Goodwin’s Law invoked.

Wrong on the facts, Marion county was 60% for Clinton.

Marijuana also falls into this category since it’s licensed for medical use.

I can’t wait to meet you in court someday.

Take more than five second to proofread your comment

Hulk won because he bankrupted the defendant with expensive lawyers funded by a third party. (i think your comment proves you don’t understand the first amendment)

5-3 against the best scoring side in Europe is not a commanding lead.

I hear what you’re saying and I think you make some strong points. I am concerned by the idea that lawsuits in and of themselves (as opposed to the results of lawsuits) should be used as tools, Blizzard can sue any small firm into oblivion, and while this firm may deserve to be shut down (I am increasingly leaning…

One of us is talking about the article, the other is calling people names in the comments. Tell me more about how I’m the troll.

Thank you, this adds a great deal of clarity and I’m glad my poor analogy was used to elucidate, even if not as I intended.

This is the definition of begging the question.

You’re entitled to that belief but that’s not generally how civil liability works. The only reason there may be a case is for how cheating harms Blizzard’s business, not because cheating is wrong and thus should be subject to lawsuits.

As I said in my initial post, if the cheat makers are using Blizzard IP to market their product, that’s certainly grounds. But I don’t actually see why they would need to do that to sell cheats, and so similarly if the hat does not infringe on the go-kart’s IP (ie branded with their logos), why should the government…