I am going to be flamed for this view. But frankly, I am sick of arguments that merely serve to rationalize, justify, or explain away an immoral act.

The ideals of morality have apparently been utterly decimated in our "modern" society. We increasingly live in a world where "what is right" is simply equivalent to "what I can get away with".

In my opinion, content creators have a moral obligation to do no harm to their consumers. E.g., to not falsely advertise, or bait-and-switch, and to not install viruses or steal information from their customers' computers.

In my opinion, being able to "try before you buy" is not a right consumers have ... it is only a privilege that can be granted by the creator, if they choose to do so. However, they are not obligated to do that if they don't want to.

If a dev / studio feels that their sales will be at risk unless they provide a means to "try first", then fine: they can use a trial/demo/beta/viral-marketing/whatever technique to get the exposure they feel they need in order to achieve the financial results they want. If they don't feel that they need that (e.g., due to reputation, buzz, franchise, favorable review, sunspots, whatever) ... then I believe it is their right, as the content creators, to make that call. The market may respond unfavorably to their decision, whatever it is ... but that is the cost/risk of being in business (i.e., understanding your market and what can and cannot be effectively monetized).

In my view, the only way morality is upheld is if the creator's expressed "fair use" terms, expressed at the time of publication or sale, are not violated. The creator can decide to set a price point that is too high, and the market should respond by not buying it. Their bottom line will be impacted because sales projections will be wrong. Their future ability to create will be compromised.

I believe our moral obligation, as consumers, is to respect the terms established by the content creators. If I don't agree with the terms, then I will not play the game. After all, it is only a game. In the grand scheme of things, isn't it much more important that I act justly and treat my fellow humans with decency and respect ... rather than I get the chance to play a video game?

Not agreeing with the creator's terms does not, in any way, give me the right or the authority to simply sidestep those terms. People can and will do that, yes. But I believe we should all be held to a higher standard (and that we should start by holding each other to that standard as well).

If you will only buy it if you can try it first ... then, unless the creator has given you an "experience it first" avenue, then I assert that you should just decide a game isn't for you and move on, rather than somehow delude yourself into thinking that what you are doing is "ok" (i.e., that you don't have to respect the wishes of the content creator, because you deem them to be unreasonable/unfair/whatever). You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you are violating the content creator's prescribed distribution or use terms, then you are not acting in a moral manner. Period.

Frankly, in the context of this discussion, I don't care much what is actually "legal" vs. "not legal". The simple fact is: the content in question would not exist without the efforts of the content creator. I believe the content creator should, if they desire to, receive compensation for their efforts. Further, I believe they are entitled to that compensation regardless of whether I, ultimately, enjoyed it or not. If I chose to experience it, for 2 hours ... or 2000 hours, I believe they should receive some compensation for providing me the opportunity to experience it (if that is their goal). Now, whether or not I enjoyed it will definitely influence my future willingness to try something else from them: and that is the risk creators take. They must produce quality experiences if they expect to be able to be in the business of creation for any duration of time.

We are a species that is capable of so much more than getting away with something because the letter of the law might be ambiguous ... or because technology may make it "easy" to do. I personally think it is high time that we started acting like it ... and treat each other, the way we ourselves would want to be treated.