You can’t be an Outrun, either. It was still a fine title for a game.

And how does any of that in any way relate to the argument I quoted? I didn’t ask how piracy differed from a library. I asked how his specific argument against piracy wasn’t also an argument against libraries. He said nothing about reproduction, so it’s too late to start pretending that was his point.

Some good glitches would also be appreciated. I won’t soon forget the time Smackdown 2 for PS1 put me in a Royal Rumble against 29 X-Pacs.

You equated borrowing to copying and to lending and then explained why copying and lending were irrelevant. But since they aren’t the same thing, you never answered the question. Except for that time when you did, realized that you had to argue against yourself to do it, and then decided you wanted to walk back your…

He defies all motive, all knowable pathology. He just is.

It won’t lead to more successful lawsuits or prosecution of misconduct as long as they are the ones who control the footage. You can’t present evidence if they won’t let you see it or it gets “accidentally” deleted.

The argument was never that borrowing is buying.

Pure nonsense. Now you’re just redefining words. Using your definition, a digital copy can’t be “obtained” because you can’t keep it in a box for ten years, regift it, or resell it. Using the actual definitions, borrowing is distinctly not “buying”. You might as well argue that you bought every TV show that you’ve…

Playing the pirated game (1) recognizes there is some value to the game, otherwise it wouldn’t be played, but (2) refuses to demonstrate that value monetarily, or to negotiate the game’s value with the developer’s or publisher’s consent. One can not buy and not obtain the game; not buying and obtaining the game…

If you want to argue about copying, go ahead. But that’s a new argument. Stop pretending that it is included in the statement I’ve been arguing against this entire time. You don’t get to create a new argument in order to avoid the one you can’t win, Mr. Ethical.

Crucify ‘em.

The downloader doesn’t have to because the uploader already did in buying the game. Unless you want to launch into another diatribe about copying, despite copying having never been mentioned in your original statement?

I never claimed lending was unethical by your standard. It’s the borrower who “refuses to demonstrate that value monetarily”.

“Refuses to demonstrate that value monetarily” - the lender paid, the borrower didn’t.

Borrowers don’t negotiate for publisher’s consent. According to your statement, that is what makes pirates bad. Are you now saying that it is morally acceptable to not negotiate with the publishers as long as the law says you don’t have to? Because A) that would be the distinction I’ve been asking for since my first…

Seth Rollins, in spite of being the cover athlete this year, looks like a fan-created wrestler and not someone whose faced was scanned:

You need to do better than that and establish why (a) the publisher’s consent matters in borrowing a single thing

Because it does. That’s why, even after a half dozen attempts, you haven’t been able to say why it doesn’t without bringing in new arguments about copying.

Nice burn. Almost as slick as “I know you are, but what am I”.

(And don’t launch into another tangent about how piracy isn’t borrowing. I know it isn’t. I never said it was.)