No. You just are a zealot that doesn't understand basic things.
Go on, if you think that ad hominem arguments will help you prove your stupid "piracy is better than second-hand" point, go for it. It just makes you look even more like an idiot.
It doesn't matter if you buy a second hand copy or you pirate a game - in both cases, publisher doesn't get a single dime from you.
I guess you didn't read my first reply to you. The same thing you mentioned here happens to every single second-market product on the market, thus, your proposition is false.
And I don't care about legality. If your main reasoning against piracy is the law, I really, really pity you. I usually
don't pirate games (have around 1,000 purchased titles and around 30-40 pirated games, maybe more, I would have to count, but it's still a small fraction of all games) because I want
Laws are the basic pillar of every nation in the world, buddy. If you think laws are meaningless, i am the one who pity you. I'd like to hear you say "i don't care about legality" if someone stole something from you or raped someone you like (and before you make fucking dumb assumptions, i'm not comparing rape and stealing to piracy, i'm questioning the i don't care about laws argument). You say that "legality doesn't matter" because it's convenient for you in this particular case. If it wasn't, you wouldn't. You just want to believe in what seems more convenient to justify piracy. It's very easy to say that laws don't matter when violating them benefits you, but i would like to see the same phrase if violating a law damaged you somehow.
The "i don't care about legality" is a rather dangerous argument, it could be used to justify even the biggest atrocities. It's a very dangerous way of thinking. Laws are the only real objective norms we have to guide the human conduct that we can enforce. Morals, religion, and every other source of norms is subjective. So yeah, laws DO matter.
And that wasn't even my main point either. Even morally i still think that buying a second-hand product is a much better solution than getting an illegal copy. I'd much rather acquire a product from someone that paid for it once, than to get a copy that came from a torrent tracker seeding the same file to millions of users. Just think about the logic: a second-hand sale will generate one sale, only one copy will be transfered by the sale; a copy uploaded on a torrent will generate millions of copies that only one guy ever paid for (maybe he paid for it, most of these pirated releases come from leaked copies when the game goes gold).
Of course nothing is black and white, there is the eventual System Shock 2 or Albion case, but you don't always have to resort to piracy. Most second-hand games are actually affordable. I imported my Thief complete collection for 10 dollars, and that was before GOG's release (it wasn't even second-hand, it was a brand-new copy from ebay). If i went by yout logic, i would have pirated it.
There's also something that you don't understand. A second-hand sale doesn't generate multiple copies of the same game, only one person will be able to use it (the one who owns it at that time). Only one legal copy can be used at a given time. If someone sells, lends or gives away his copy, he won't be able to use it anymore. With piracy one copy generates an virtually infinite amount of copies. Many users will be able to use it at the same time.
Zolgar explained it better than me with a great example:
market: 2-10 people experience the content for a single purchase price
Piracy: 2-10,000 people experience the content for a single purchase price.
My approach is simple - if a publisher isn't interested in my money, I don't need to buy it. The same thing is with TV series - if a producer isn't interested in me watching it - it doesn't matter if I do, he doesn't earn on me anyway. And I will say it again - I don't care about legality when it concerns piracy.
If i went by your logic i would have to pirate most games out there. Most game companies except for Microsoft, Ubisoft, EA, Sony, Blizzard and Valve don't give a flying fuck about brazillian customers. In fact, they don't care about third-world countries.
How can you "abuse" something that is good? First sale doctrine doesn't apply to shop keepers or what?
Yes, you can abuse something that is good. There is something called "abuse of right" to prevent the abuse of a legally obtained right. The ownership right, for example, can be abused. In fact, the main case that started discussions about this subject was about the abuse of the right of ownership (the famous Clement-Bayard case http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/transnational/work_new/french/case.php?id=1205
). There are no absolute rights. Even the right to life can be relativized in special cases in most countries (during war, for example). According to Bobbio, the only absolute right is the right to not be enslaved.
"Second hand market isn't harming publisher as long as 1000 people sell 1000 copies not 1 person sells 1000 copies" , yeah, makes sense.
Also, there is no such thing, as "slot". I will explain this to you on abstract example - a game may be played but only one person online, two cases:
a) when a person stops playing it, another person buys it and plays, and when he gets tired of the game, another one buys it
b) only one person buys a game and then sells it to another, and another.
In B case, the company goes bankrupt even though in both cases only 1 person plays a game at the same time. Second hand market costs them money.
Companies don't create "slots", upkeeping servers isn't free. It's calculated, that person A will play a game for a certain time, and then probably stops. And if another person wants to play, it's ok, because he paid for a game to us, so we have money to operate.
You can't calculate something such as the interest in online play. You can't calculate whether someone will or will not stop playing, or whether or not he will sell his copy and how many times it will happen. This is within their business risks.
And if they do make an online experience worth playing, most people will not sell second-hand games, trust me. Online gameplay doesn't end, it doesn't have a limited lifespan like the singeplayer experience. If people keep selling their games and are not interested in the online experience, than they failed in making it interesting.
As far as i know COD and Halo don't have online passes (at least i'm sure Halo doesn't). These games don't need it.
To be honest, i think that second-hand sales are just an excuse for publishers to try to get even more money. And we know how experienced they are in getting as much money as possible.
Online passes exist because publishers clearly don't want
second handers to play online, because it costs them money.
I'm not totally against online passes, but i am against blocking second-hand sales for physical games. If the next generation does block second-hand, as the rumours seem to suggest, it'll be a dick move.
But I know you will say that everything here is a bullshit, and you're the bearer of the ultimate truth, so you know. Do your thing.
I'm discussing the subject with rational arguments. But feel free to post more ad hominem arguments if that makes you feel better.