You said piracy was only when people were unwilling or unable to pay for something. I said people pirated for many other reasons

I'm trying to stay relevant to the article and the topic at hand. You can be a dick about it all that you want, but you're the one straying off topic.

Insult: the last refuge for those with nothing important left to say.

So, with all the war and disease and oppression in the world, penny-ante hypocrisy is what really riles your moral indignation?

So if I create something and price it too high for you to afford, that gives you some inherent moral right to just take it? If I sell it to someone else, and then they decide to price it out of your range, that somehow gives you an inherent claim to my creation?

Since not buying the game and pirating it have exactly the same economic impact on both Gamestop and "the developers", why are you getting so upset about it?

That's still piracy, and it's still a matter of you circumventing the policy the studio put in place because you felt entitled to be able to watch their show without paying. Something you are, in fact, not entitled to.

I don't know what you mean by "equality of access." If I create something, I should get to decide who gets access to it, and I should be able to set my price. If you don't meet my price, what right do you have to access my product?

No, I wouldn't suggest anyone pay that price for Xenoblade. It's highway robbery for a mediocre game. I'm just saying that price doesn't justify piracy. It just justifies not buying the game.

Well, we can hardly call them out for it if we, as consumers, can't even live up to the standard that we expect from these developers, now can we?

I agree with paying for products when you can, and skipping them when you can't. There's no justification for taking a luxury product (essentially a toy) just because it's too expensive, or because you don't like the company's policies. That's just greed and entitlement, and it's not valid to expect a level of…

Because I find the concept of people trying to justify their own greed and entitlement by portraying them as righteous crusades to be obscene.

These might not be actual "used" games. If they were truly used and previously bought and then turned back in, then yes they can do this. But if they are new product, as is implied in this article, then gamestop is not just "obligated" but possibly REQUIRED to sell them at a certain price.

No, it's not legitimate. It is, in fact, the very example of illegitimacy. You don't have a right to "stay in the culture." You don't have a right to possess a product you didn't pay for. The attempt to legitimize piracy is the attempt to legitimize greed and entitlement.

Yeah, but most of them aren't trying to portray their own greed and entitlement as a crusade for righteousness (well, maybe the politicians). I find that particularly obscene.

What does developers getting money have to do with the fact that you are not entitled to possess a game you didn't pay for?

I'm not trying to change anything. I'm just making the point that piracy is immoral, and it's not some sort of anti-corporation moral crusade. It's greed which people try to justify using thin moral justifications. I'm not expecting anyone to change; I'm just calling these people what they are: greedy and entitled.

And yet regardless of who is selling the product, my point stands. Gamestop paid for that disc. You did not. You have no inherent right to possess that product just because you don't like what Gamestop is doing.

No, just those who feel they have some inherent right to own something they did not pay for. Honestly, how do you justify piracy in any way that can not be responded to with a simple: then just skip that game/movie/song if you don't want to pay what's asked for it?

*twitch*