But what I'm trying to point out is that merely copying data, illegally or not, does not harm the author by itself because they have not been deprived of anything. Then there's the fact that not paying them doesn't harm them.

Even if this is so, artificial scarcity is still illogical. However, it would be difficult to determine whether or not it was because of the DRM or because the game merely sold more copies. There are far too many pirates and websites that host pirated content to get an accurate statistic on this. Far too many unknowns.

As I said, my inability to think of a better system does not mean that the current one is not broken. It merely means that there are currently no viable alternatives (at least of my own).

Again, merely not giving someone money whilst also not wasting any of their time or resources does not hurt them because they've been deprived of nothing.

No, that would merely introduce more unnecessary artificial scarcity and worsen the situation and flaws that I am speaking of. Note that I am not against paying for media and that I think that it's nice when someone rewards an artist for their efforts, but it's just that I'm against the notion that piracy somehow equates to theft.

I wanted to not only work, but get paid. My boss specifically hired me not only so that I could work, but so that I could get paid. He and I both entered into an agreement that I would eventually be paid, and if he doesn't, then he has wasted my time with lies.

My boss should pay me because he specifically requested that I employ my services, thereby directly wasting my time. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data.

So, people shouldn't be allowed to choose whether to buy the game or not because if they don't it would deprive the game developers of money? Or to inform people of bad products because it might deprive the developer of money?

That isn't a straw man. I was pointing out how illogical a certain argument is and how other arguments indirectly point to that illogical argument. Development is a service, but not one that the pirates asked the developers to employ. If you, for instance, ask someone to build a house and then don't pay them, you have wasted their time. Pirates use their own time and resources to copy the data. Time was used to make the original, yes, but again, if you expect them to be compensated for something that the pirate didn't even ask for, and since merely copying data doesn't deprive anyone of anything, you're basically saying that everyone should buy the product because the developers put time into it.

I'm referring to the act of trying to limit the amount of copies of digital media that exist to only those who pay for it, even though it can be copied infinitely as long as you have the space to do it. Hence, artificial scarcity.

I ask again, how does that hurt them? If I wished to control all of the money in the world, does it hurt me if I can't (well, it might hurt my ego, but that's it). Merely losing the right to distribute your digital media does not alone financially harm you.

Uh, no, you didn't. You copied the game (as in, you created an extra copy of the game that didn't exist before whilst depriving the developer of nothing). The developer wasn't deprived of the game, he was deprived of nothing.

Obviously I was saying that as long as you had enough space and power, digital media is in infinite supply. It can be copied infinitely.

Capitalism is what is failing us (not just in this way either, many others). It is not sustainable.

Even as that may be, that doesn't mean it's logical to say that pirates are hurting anyone just because we're currently stuck in this system.

They haven't lost anything. How could they lose money that they didn't originally have? Example: someone tells all of their friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it, and they ultimately decide not to. If they hadn't told their friends not to buy the product, they would have bought it. Therefore, according to your logic, the business has lost revenue that it would have had otherwise. A legitimate business has been 'harmed'.

No, not exactly. They're more like someone who tells others not to buy a product for whatever reason.

So, the business has lost potential profit (which doesn't exist)? Even so, this argument assumes that potential profit can be stolen, but it really can't.

Too many people. I can barely keep track of all the replies.

Uh, no, I didn't. If a bunch of people who do something that in reality deprives no one of anything are looked upon as criminals simply because an artist might not receive enough money (and therefore not be able to do what they love any longer), then that sounds like the failing of a broken system, not of random people who are doing something that hurts no one.

They were created to be used in a system which was broken to begin with.

If everyone stopped buying products (or even a majority of people, leaving the minority 'damaged'), would we see a decline in those types of products? Again, this seems to be a failing of the current system.

Upon taking that stance, according to the potential profit argument, they have 'hurt' the artist because if they would have bought the product, the artist would have been better off, and therefore would likely have been able to produce more content.

You and others keep saying this, and it's wearing thin. You have never once explained what exactly is being stolen. Not the media itself, as they merely copied that. They never had the money in the first place, so it's obviously not that. What is being stolen?