My beef with piracy.

[warprincenataku]

I live in a third world country, buying legitimate software is not in our vocabulary.

 

[e2density]

My view on piracy is: If some crappy company wants me to pull $50 out of my ass for a video game (1/4th the price of a console) and give me a crappy 1 level demo or sometimes no demo at all, I ain't gonna buy the game. Sometimes I pirate just so I can get a taste of the gameplay, without having to commit $50 for it or feel restricted by a single level in a game.

Although I am kind of sad, because all the people that pirated SFIV, there was no Super SFIV for PC...

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Now, the thread about the Obama administration's plans is filled with enough examples of this that I refuse to return there.

Spoiler

People's privacy should not be invaded. However personally I'm surprised the internet isn't monitored more strongly than it already is. In England I believe your internet history is held by the government for 12 months then deleted, should they need to use it against you.

This is not invading people's privacy. This is keeping people's internet history in the short term so that they have it if you commit a crime and they need evidence. If they didn't do this then the law which governs us would be unenforcable.

What people seem to be after is a world where the internet is left unfettered, because breaking the law is of greater benefit to Hollywood, they just don't realise it because they're too busy with their money baths.

But anyway.
My problem with piracy is the justifications, the "It's try before you buy / free advertising", the "It's because prices are too expensive" excuses.

I'm sorry, but that is like somebody driving away from a petrol station without paying because they want to protest against high petrol prices.

Sure, you get your petrol, until the police show up and arrest you. They don't arrest you because you represent a threat to bureaucracy and they want you silenced, they arrest you because you committed a crime. You didn't pay the price for the petrol you used.

Joe Biden called it "theft". It's not hyperbole - THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. You are taking a service without paying.

If you want a CD but don't want to pay the full price - just wait a few months. CDs decrease in price. Same with DVDs, same with games.
If you don't want the publishers and record companies to get rich, you can buy one second hand.
If you still believe yourself to be vindicated, feel free to argue with me - if you can find a way of proving this without using any of the above I shall be impressed.

(Oh, and anyone who says "Everybody does it" as an excuse...you have been warned.)

I'm anticipating this thread devolving quickly into a flame war and being locked. Please attempt to prove me wrong.

Ok I like to think I commit piracy in the perfect way so as not to hurt the industry.
I have pirated one game (I dont already own on console) in the form of a rom. Pokemon mystery dungion. It was awefull. This was a game i WOULD NEVER EVER EVER buy regardless of any reviews or the gameplay I experienced in this rom. The arguement against piracy is I take away a sale from them. But i have not. I was never a potential sale. I would never had bought that even if the option of piracy was NOT available. Not in a million years. I have not denied them any potential sale. I never was one, I'm out of the equation. I only got it for my little couson to try out and just to see the new turn pokemon and taken. He then went and bought this game himself.

I saw a youtube video called "stay crunchy" and LOVED the music in it. However this artist played a very unique version in the video and the one he has for sale on Itunes isn't the same one, this is not the one I want. I could not pirate this, I couldn't make myself. Pirating true talent you actually want to buy is wrong. Pirating random shiz you WOULD NEVER BUY isn't stealing. You were never part of the consumer market or a potential sale.

 

[Beastialman]

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

OH GOD A GOOD POINT! Go internet kill switch!

 

[Seydaman]

How about this justification:

Libraries are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

Torrent sites are places that host other people's intellectual property that you can view for free while the creator makes no money off of it, whether you enjoy it or not.

There are only three real differences; amount of content, ease of access, social acceptance.

Except in libraries you are expected to return the item or PAY a fine after a certain time.
But I honestly don't give a fuck, to quote everyones mom from the past 20000 years
"FINE FINE, you might get arrested but do whacha want"
Edit: But remember, sharing is caring <3

 

[DracoSuave]

This is the problem that I have with piracy.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4003-the-pirate-bay/

Also, I'm broke. I would love to pay for every game that I play. I would love to buy every console. I'd also like for there to be world peace, give every homeless person ten thousand dollars, and be out of high school. Like it or not, I can't do any of those. In fact, I can hardly buy one game a year with the money I end up with. I don't pretend I'm not stealing, but I'm playing the industries games, standing up for them in public, and hopefully supporting them later on in life. I hope they can support me for just a little bit longer.

Your argument is utter BS.

You've basically said 'I'd love to do things but I cannot afford them.' Which is true. However that does not logically equate to: 'So therefore piracy is okay.'

You've basically said 'I'm poor but I want it so it's okay to take it.' That's not true, not even in a perfectly rational sense. You don't -need- what you're pirating. You do not -require- it. You'd just -like to have it- and cannot afford it. In other words, it's a luxury item. You are not entitled to have it.

Going back to the piracy=library argument.

If a file at a hosted torrent site is put there by its original distributor, with the full intent it be distributed and shared, and it has the ability to self-destruct when you are done with it, then yes, it is like a library.

NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.

It is not like a library. Libraries are full of books that the owners of those copyrights have sold to them. The library did not 'make a copy of the book' and then 'allow others to make free copies.' And, if you take a library book and use the library photocopier to make copies of the entire book, you've broken the law. They tend to frown on that at libraries.

Fact: Every rationalization for piracy is self-serving and is meant to rationalize stealing. Look, if you pirate it, you are stealing it. Just accept it.

'But it won't go away!'
Neither will murder. Doesn't make it right to kill people.

'But they make millions of dollars!'
How much money a product makes is not a rationalization for stealing it. I don't care if Walmart makes millions of dollars, that doesn't give me the right to stuff DVDs down my pants and run out.

'It's the poor screwing it to the rich!'
These rich people are not land owners taxing you to death. They are providers of a luxury product, which you have decided you want. You are the villain here.

'I just wanted to try it before I buy it!'
And how many pirated games have you -actually- bought? Really? REALLLLLLY? Besides, its not up to you to decide you get free demos of the entire game. It's up to the provider of that product.

'The internet is a new way to distribute content!'
Not arguing that point. That doesn't logically equate to 'so I should get everything for free.'

'The entertainment industry is overproduced and provides crappy shlock that is overpriced, so I'm protesting that as a consumer.'
Bullshit. If you weren't interested in that product you'd not have pirated it.

'It was a bad game, so it never would have been a sale!
Bullshit. If you had no interest in it (ironic or not), you'd not have pirated it. Hell, the entertainment industry has an entire section of it based on people playing to see bad entertainment. It's called 'camp' and it's been going on for decades. Your excuse doesn't even hold water while I'm willing to pay to go see the Room on friday night.

Piracy affects me as a consumer as now I no longer buy products I pay for services that are products whenever convenient to the provider. Now, I'm forced to sign contracts after paying for something and if I don't like the contract, I've ALREADY PAID FOR THE PRODUCT. (Protip: The EULA is not a contract under Canadian law, because money has already exchanged hands and therefore any pertinent contract about that product or service is already satisfied)

Pirating random shiz you WOULD NEVER BUY isn't stealing. You were never part of the consumer market or a potential sale.

Bullshit. Taking something you do not plan to buy is stealing. It's the fucking definition of stealing.

Stealing is the act of taking something that you are not willing to pay for, against the wishes of whoever owns it.

Your motivation 'I never wanted to pay for it' only makes it STEALING MOAR.

Your argument is self-serving. The fact you're willing to steal because you expect you would not like the product only shows how callous you are towards the act. 'Meh this sucks, guess I'll take it.'

I'll bet you still played through it, going 'Wow, this sucks, sure glad I didn't pay for it.'

How's this for an argument: If it sucks so bad you don't want to ever pay for it, SPEND YOUR TIME DOING SOMETHING ENJOYABLE.

That is the ONLY rational conclusion to that line of thinking. Everything is involves being irrational... i.e. 'I want to spend my time doing something I don't enjoy' which is an irrational motivation.

Either that, or you lied about not wanting it.

 

[Choppaduel]

Eh,I honestly couldn't care, downloading files is completely legal in Canada (not uploading though) XD

Not for long it won't be. go look up bill C-32. (The Canadian Copyright Modernization Act)

-m

This makes me very sad, yet I'm hopeful its a step on the path to zero piracy and ~$15 CAD new releases. I'll keep dreaming....

 

[Uberpwn-w00t]

I think other people have covered all the bases here by now. But since I've spent a good portion of my day reading most of these posts, I feel inclined to give my opinion.

The question: "Is piracy wrong?"

1. I feel that the term 'piracy' does not accurately describe the act we have come to know as 'piracy'. As such, I will be giving it a new name. For the remainder of this post, piracy shall be known as gingersnapping. I am not 'offended' by the use of the term 'piracy' to describe gingersnapping. It is my firm belief that it is one's own choice to be offended, just as much as it is to be offensive. The issue is that piracy implies theft, which brings me to my second point.

2. Gingersnapping is not theft. This is a fact. You must understand this before you continue.

STEALING: When you go to the corner store and steal a toy sandwich, you are denying the next paying customer their toy sandwich. There is one less toy sandwich for the easily amused, corner-store-shopping consumer to pay for. You are also denying the corner store the amount of money some guy would have paid for a toy sandwich that is now absent.

GINGERSNAPPING: When you go to the local gingersnapping emporium to pick up a free toy sandwich that has been duplicated somehow (black magic, I presume) from one toy sandwich originally bought from the corner store, you are not denying anybody anything. There are still the same amount of 'legitimate' toy sandwiches at the corner store, to be bought by paying costumers. And of course, there is an infinite amount of free, gingersnapped copies of the toy sandwich at the gingersnapping emporium.

Here's a visual representation to help you understand:

3. Legality is not morality. A wise man once told me it's illegal to have sexual intercourse with a porcupine in the state of Florida. Would you hit that? Probably not. I wouldn't either, it doesn't sound very pleasant. However, there is probably somebody out there who doesn't see anything wrong in getting busy with small, spiky woodland creatures. Unfortunately for him, many other people do see something wrong with that. Thus, a law is born. Now think for a moment. If this law did not exist, boning porcupines would technically be legal in Florida. Would that make it morally sound? No!

Conversely, if a law was passed stating that wearing hats was illegal, would that make wearing hats wrong? No!

4. Now we have determined three things.
1. "Piracy" isn't really piracy.
2. "Piracy" isn't really theft.
3. "Illegal" doesn't necessarily mean wrong.

So, this all leads us back to the initial question. Is gingersnapping ("piracy") wrong?

The answer: There is no answer. There never will be. Right and wrong are purely subjective. It is not stealing, and there is no real loss, so saying that it is wrong would be akin to saying that downloading a png of the mona lisa is wrong. Perhaps you may think that. I certainly do not.

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

When you steal gas from the gas station you've actually damaged someone because the supply of gas is finite and quantities are limited. Digital property has the advantage of being infinitely multiplyable, when you download something, you don't deduct it from a limited supply, you create an extra copy. You don't make damage, at least not any more damage than you cause by just not buying something. It's like going to the gas station and magically spawning another gallon of fuel in your tank with your mind and leaving. It's not theft. The issue is whether you have the right to do this and enjoy something for free while others are paying for it. And the library analogy is sort of on the side of yeah, you do...

Except that they spend either millions or at the very least a lot of time producing something. They made it: They get to decide what they do with it. If I write a good story in my diary and someone reads it or throws it under a copying machine and shares it with his friends, while putting my diary back, I may not have literal physical damage, but it is still damage.

Now a game or music may not be 'secret' in the same sense, but they spend time and money creating this precisely for having the advantage of selling access to that play experience. Do you think if you stole the CD from a music store that their biggest loss would be the physical cd? You know how little a physical CD costs! Their loss is the product they spent time building.

Well okay, they spent time and money and no one argues with that, but that's not really your fault, so to say. What are you going to do, buy every single DVD release and every game because someone spent money creating it? Because you know if you don't, the poor execs will not be able to feed their families ... Bull.

If you can create fuel with your mind, or torrent a movie, what are they supposed to do about it, strap a collar around your neck that gives you shocks when you think about it? That's what they are trying to do with all the internet monitoring these days. From a legal standpoint piracy's illegal, but from a moral or ethical view the magic/technology is there and it's not your fault if you are using it without any damage. Laws have been known to change, come to think of it so have the definitions of right and wrong, but i'd rather they didn't mess with the latter, which they totally are...

 

[The_Emperor]

you forget. the lengths people will go to, to improve their quality of life, just a little.

because something is illegal doesnt make it wrong it makes it against the law.

its wrong because its to the detriment of someone elses wallet, namely its the devs we feel guilty about taking money from.
Well atleast thats why I buy a game cos I respect the devs (and because im usually working and have the money)

but if im broke im going to download it. even if it's a book. stealing information is not the same as stealing things from a store. it doesnt have the same financial impact because there are more factors to finite and infinite. its still thievery yes but even thievery has levels of right or wrong luxury or not.

I will consciously improve my quality of life to the MINOR detriment of another person. Luxury or not. Given the ease. I have finite time, I'm not going to spend my old age worrying about all the money ive cost the games industry. I buy when i can but i live on £200 a month right now and there are no jobs in my area for reals, doesnt mean im going to reside to living a life of honest poverty that would be idiotic. sure I'm not gunna start dealing crack cos that REALLY destroys people and i get put in jail for 120987321 years.

but dl a game and not get caught?, enjoy a few hours of luxury in my otherwise not so luxurious life? yeah its easy. everyone has a different level they are willing to stoop to. Usually the poorer you are the lower it is because everyone wants to enjoy their life.

some people are just dicks sure but you cant tar everyone with the same brush

You all do it whenever you buy anything made in china or buy anything thats cheap for what it should be because they took the money out of the teenager's pocket, who makes the products,so they can pass on the saving to you.
Everyone knows whoever makes your T shirts is in some sweatshop in india or another asian country, you all know that cheap coffee was grown by an underpaid farmer.

Oil is a good example, we steal everyone elses under pretence of liberating their country. everytime you fill up you are giving them more reasons to stay in iraq, that doesnt mean you are going to walk everywhere cos that would suck duuh..got places to be, cars are a luxury why not take the bus? cos its inconvinient.

the argument isnt whether or not piracy is wrong but whether or not its ok to enjoy said luxuries at the detriment of others. which is a whooooole other philosophical debate that i dont have time to get into.

so the moral ambiguity behind piracy is a redundant argument.

its right and wrong at the same time, it does good and bad.

a good thread would be "effective solutions to make piracy redundant"

all you guys are doing is arguing the philosophy behind piracy and the problem is you are all in some sense right and you are arguing semantics. so you are wasting your time. Me too.

sorry about the length.

sorta summary: You all consciously better your own lives despite the detriment to other peoples, the only difference is the scale you do it at. a crack dealer ruins someones life to make money, while most people just buy cheap stuff that was probably made by some poor 3rd world economic serf

try comin up with a theory on how to solve the problem rather than bitching about it in some sort of feel good about yourself flamewar.

 

[Capo Taco]

Well okay, they spent time and money and no one argues with that, but that's not really your fault, so to say. What are you going to do, buy every single DVD release and every game because someone spent money creating it? Because you know if you don't, the poor execs will not be able to feed their families ... Bull.

If you can create fuel with your mind, or torrent a movie, what are they supposed to do about it, strap a collar around your neck that gives you shocks when you think about it? That's what they are trying to do with all the internet monitoring these days. From a legal standpoint piracy's illegal, but from a moral or ethical view the magic/technology is there and it's not your fault if you are using it without any damage. Laws have been known to change, come to think of it so have the definitions of right and wrong, but i'd rather they didn't mess with the latter, which they totally are...

You're not creating the movie you're torrenting.

What are they supposed to do about it? There is very little effective things they can do. I agree that internet monitoring and such is a solution that hurts more than it helps, like DRM.

But it is your fault if you are using it, because you may think there's no damage, but there is. They spend time, energy, money and risked creating a property that they have the right to decide how and when to share it and at what price. Then you get to decide whether or not pay that price.

You say it is not your fault that they made it, as if it is a bad thing that they made it. If it was a bad thing, you wouldn't have spent time downloading and watching/playing it. So you agree that it has value or you wouldn't have downloaded it. Yet, you choose to take the value, without giving them back their asked price. That is still stealing.

 

[slopeslider]

Another thing that I'd just like to say:

You know that 30+ minutes of DRM we have to put up with before we start playing any game. We have pirates to thank for that. Their selfish nature is not only killing the gaming economy but also giving us ridiculous amounts of DRM to wade through. Developers now don't have a choice. Pirates are creating an environment in which maximum profits come from Ubisoft DRM-ing us to death while the Humble Indie Bundle still gets pirated even though it's being offered for free.

PIRATES ARE UNNAFECTED BY THE DRM.
The drm is there to stop pirates.
but PIRATES ARE UNNAFECTED BY THE DRM.

I know, and we all have you to blame for this. You steal the games for your own personal enjoyment without worrying about the consequences for the honest people whom it affects.

Circular thinking much?
"we have pirates to blame for drm that affects everyone BUT them."
Please tell me how I stole something from retro studios by buying all 3 of their games at full retail and only getting it off the interweb because my disc scratched and they provide no backups or extra installs.
People always say 'you're not buying the disc, you're buying a license to play the game.'
Then why do I get no backup copies or help if the disc scratches? The disc should be irrelevant, I bought the game, not the disc, which is a way of getting the game to me. If the disc scratched, let me get a new one, It doesn't cost 49.99 for a piece of plastic.
Stuff like this is what makes people torrent. Never mind the fact I OWN THE SOFTWARE I paid to get license to use it. A software company wouldn't survive if it's motto was 'If your easily breakable disc is ruined in any way, BUY ANOTHER GAME LICENSE SUCKERS'
There was drm before there was an easy way to share games, piracy didn't drive drm into existance. It was pre-emptive, so you couldn't share your games with your neighbors, not because profits were down due to piracy.

 

[Yawwy]

Can I just ask,how is me downloading a pirated copy of a game,let's say,Super Mario Galaxy 2,any different from walking to the nearest game store,and picking up a pre-owned copy.I am not giving anything to the creators.All the money is going to that store.The creators have been paid once,but the store can continue to sell that one copy,in theory,as many times as they want,assuming it is sold back to them.So...really,how is it any different?They lose out on 'potential sales',and the company did not consent to allow the game store to resell their work,for their own profit.

In fact,come to think of it,doesn't the copyright agreement say 'You may not sell this game on',or something more legally sounding?So,why are stores able to do this?It isn't like I'm giving the shop owner the uber-duper-super secret handshake,being turned around five times and asked if Magikarp is any good before I can buy a pre-owned game.And yet,pirating is bad.It's no different to the pre-owned game market.At least with pirating,people are more likely to go out and support the creators by buying a legitimate copy.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Going back to the piracy=library argument.

Skipping the bit before that because you were talking to someone else, but this is my argument.

If a file at a hosted torrent site is put there by its original distributor, with the full intent it be distributed and shared, and it has the ability to self-destruct when you are done with it, then yes, it is like a library.

NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.

BOOKS SELF-DESTRUCT WHEN YOU'RE DONE READING THEM!? How long after?!! Oh god, my house is a fucking time bomb just waiting to go off! Fuck! WhatdoIdowhatdoIdo!? You can return a book and immediately check it out again. And most books in a library are donated. You know why? Because actual thieves, who deprive the library of the book through theft, run off with them. Provided they don't come back, the library isn't getting paid for that book.

It is not like a library. Libraries are full of books that the owners of those copyrights have sold to them. The library did not 'make a copy of the book' and then 'allow others to make free copies.' And, if you take a library book and use the library photocopier to make copies of the entire book, you've broken the law. They tend to frown on that at libraries.

Again, most books are donated to the library. Books are very rarely bought by the library, which is why if you ask them to get one they'll probably say "It'll be months if not years before we do that".

Fact: Every rationalization for piracy is self-serving and is meant to rationalize stealing. Look, if you pirate it, you are stealing it. Just accept it.

No, I actually believe what I'm doing is fine. Not rationalizing it any more than my other actions. Because after all, you should have rational reasons for believing the things you do. Just makes sense.

'But it won't go away!'
Neither will murder. Doesn't make it right to kill people.

'But they make millions of dollars!'
How much money a product makes is not a rationalization for stealing it. I don't care if Walmart makes millions of dollars, that doesn't give me the right to stuff DVDs down my pants and run out.

'It's the poor screwing it to the rich!'
These rich people are not land owners taxing you to death. They are providers of a luxury product, which you have decided you want. You are the villain here.

I don't promote any of those reasons, but if someone tries to talk about poor developers needing money I'll start talking about that sort of stuff. Not because that's part of my reasoning, but to refute part of theirs.

'I just wanted to try it before I buy it!'
And how many pirated games have you -actually- bought? Really? REALLLLLLY? Besides, its not up to you to decide you get free demos of the entire game. It's up to the provider of that product.

Probably all but a couple, and most of the ones I bought and the ones I didn't, I wouldn't have bought anyway. I don't spend money if I'm unsure of the product. That's just good business sense. And why does the provider get to decide what happens to the product? That's a principle I disagree with on a fundamental level.

'The internet is a new way to distribute content!'
Not arguing that point. That doesn't logically equate to 'so I should get everything for free.'

No, but it does logically equate to: "They're not losing a potential sale and a product, only a potential sale." and it could be argued that most of the time, they aren't even losing a potential sale. So in short, they lose nothing.

'The entertainment industry is overproduced and provides crappy shlock that is overpriced, so I'm protesting that as a consumer.'
Bullshit. If you weren't interested in that product you'd not have pirated it.

Yeah, I don't think it's a decent way to protest crappy products. It is a good way to ensure that what you think might be a good product but turns out to be a crappy one doesn't get your money.

'It was a bad game, so it never would have been a sale!
Bullshit. If you had no interest in it (ironic or not), you'd not have pirated it. Hell, the entertainment industry has an entire section of it based on people playing to see bad entertainment. It's called 'camp' and it's been going on for decades. Your excuse doesn't even hold water while I'm willing to pay to go see the Room on friday night.

But would they have the sale of that pirate? Because if not, they have lost nothing.

Piracy affects me as a consumer as now I no longer buy products I pay for services that are products whenever convenient to the provider. Now, I'm forced to sign contracts after paying for something and if I don't like the contract, I've ALREADY PAID FOR THE PRODUCT. (Protip: The EULA is not a contract under Canadian law, because money has already exchanged hands and therefore any pertinent contract about that product or service is already satisfied)

Don't blame me for the disproportionate actions of others.

Pirating random shiz you WOULD NEVER BUY isn't stealing. You were never part of the consumer market or a potential sale.

Bullshit. Taking something you do not plan to buy is stealing. It's the fucking definition of stealing.

Stealing is the act of taking something that you are not willing to pay for, against the wishes of whoever owns it.

Yes, but you don't take intellectual property, you access it. With no taking, there is no stealing.

Your motivation 'I never wanted to pay for it' only makes it STEALING MOAR.

Your argument is self-serving. The fact you're willing to steal because you expect you would not like the product only shows how callous you are towards the act. 'Meh this sucks, guess I'll take it.'

Access, not take

I'll bet you still played through it, going 'Wow, this sucks, sure glad I didn't pay for it.'

How's this for an argument: If it sucks so bad you don't want to ever pay for it, SPEND YOUR TIME DOING SOMETHING ENJOYABLE.

That is the ONLY rational conclusion to that line of thinking. Everything is involves being irrational... i.e. 'I want to spend my time doing something I don't enjoy' which is an irrational motivation.

Either that, or you lied about not wanting it.

Yeah, that post confused me too.

So authors of books, but not writers for video games, should be forced to work part time jobs? One person getting paid more than another on average doesn't make it "right".

I never said anything about what was right and what not. The thing is, though, that book writers are not neccessarily dependent on their work being bought. They get their main income from their job and in their free time they write books and sell them to publishers. If the books don't sell anymore - fuck it, I've still got my regular job.
A games designer is not in that position. Develop three failures in a row or something and you're out of a job. Who gives a shit if Beyond Good&Evil or Psychonauts are considered cult classics if nobody bought them?

The question is, why is the creation of one type of intellectual property considered a job but not the other? Why do authors have to have a separate job, but not those who work on video games? We accept giving out the author's work for free in libraries, but not a video game on a torrent site. Why should we accept one without the other?

Second, those developers are very well entitled to your money. No matter whether you enjoyed their work or not, you took the service. This is also not like street musicians who play music and just hope you drop em a Euro or buy their CD. From the very beginning on, those developers made clear "we're going to make this game and for you to check it out, we will provide trailers, gameplay videos, developer walkthroughs and a demo - that should be enough for you to realize if the game is it worth for you or not. Just don't simply download it, play through, and afterwards say 'it was shit, you're not getting anything'."

Again, this is about permission. Not all the authors in your library have given permission to have their books in the library. Also, there's evidence that pirates put more money into the industry than others do, so it comes down mainly to having been given permission. I say other people's permission means little to nothing in terms of morality.

Let me tell you I'm rather indifferent to the subject of internet piracy. Sure, I do get pissed about people who don't pay any money and got to see even more movies than me, but that's about it. I really do have bigger problems than to fight music piracy.
The one thing I can NOT stand, though, (as the OP, if I remember correctly) are any sort of justifications pirates bring up again and again, that's not referring especially to you. I was trying to make clear in my earlier post that any sort of excuse for piracy is absolutely idiotic, but sadly it seems many believe them themselves. It's always the same, high pricing, bad customer service, testing, whatever. The only thing I want clear is that none of those reasons make pirating software any better. With the very few assholes out there saying "I just don't care, I take whatever I want" you at least know you simply avoid them, but the rest still gives you the feeling there is room for discussion and maybe to bring one or two back to the light side of things, even though experience taught you many times that this is impossible

I believe these reasons because they make sense. If they're stupid, you should be able to point out the logical fallacies, and the logical fallacies behind any counter-points I make for those and so on. Believing something different because of a difference in opinion regarding an underlying ethical principal doesn't make me or my arguments stupid though. And while you aren't referring to me specifically, I am part of the group you're generalizing.

Don't fret it.

People like to say doing wrong is ok. Just let them live in that fantasy world.

One of these days it will catch up to them, and they will be called to be responsible.

No, I like to say "Why is it wrong? Just because isn't a reason. I can do that too you know. "You there, you're wrong for not killing kittens. Why is it wrong not to kill kittens? It just is" See? That doesn't work. Give reasons or gtfo!" Just because you're saying I'm wrong about being okay, doesn't mean I'm saying wrong is okay.

 

[Chunko]

Another thing that I'd just like to say:

You know that 30+ minutes of DRM we have to put up with before we start playing any game. We have pirates to thank for that. Their selfish nature is not only killing the gaming economy but also giving us ridiculous amounts of DRM to wade through. Developers now don't have a choice. Pirates are creating an environment in which maximum profits come from Ubisoft DRM-ing us to death while the Humble Indie Bundle still gets pirated even though it's being offered for free.

PIRATES ARE UNNAFECTED BY THE DRM.
The drm is there to stop pirates.
but PIRATES ARE UNNAFECTED BY THE DRM.

I know, and we all have you to blame for this. You steal the games for your own personal enjoyment without worrying about the consequences for the honest people whom it affects.

Circular thinking much?
"we have pirates to blame for drm that affects everyone BUT them."
Please tell me how I stole something from retro studios by buying all 3 of their games at full retail and only getting it off the interweb because my disc scratched and they provide no backups or extra installs.
People always say 'you're not buying the disc, you're buying a license to play the game.'
Then why do I get no backup copies or help if the disc scratches? The disc should be irrelevant, I bought the game, not the disc, which is a way of getting the game to me. If the disc scratched, let me get a new one, It doesn't cost 49.99 for a piece of plastic.
Stuff like this is what makes people torrent. Never mind the fact I OWN THE SOFTWARE I paid to get license to use it. A software company wouldn't survive if it's motto was 'If your easily breakable disc is ruined in any way, BUY ANOTHER GAME LICENSE SUCKERS'
There was drm before there was an easy way to share games, piracy didn't drive drm into existance. It was pre-emptive, so you couldn't share your games with your neighbors, not because profits were down due to piracy.

A lot of what you're saying is very valid, it's not in contradiction to what I'm saying, we're just approaching it from different angles. Piracy (+) = DRM (+) = Piracy (+) It's a horibble cycle but it would cost game companies too much to stop the DRM so the only way to stop this cycle is to stop pirating. Game companies can't stop making DRM because they'd lose sales if they did. So if we want the game industry to stay alive we need to stop pirating now.

 

[Chunko]

Well that's nice except now it's no longer profitable for the toy designers to create that toy. Since you didn't buy it from the toy sandwich company soon they'll go out of business. Then in the near future no one will be able to have toy sandwiches, all thanks to you. Have you seen how horrible our industry has been doing lately?

 

[DracoSuave]

Going back to the piracy=library argument.

Skipping the bit before that because you were talking to someone else, but this is my argument.

If a file at a hosted torrent site is put there by its original distributor, with the full intent it be distributed and shared, and it has the ability to self-destruct when you are done with it, then yes, it is like a library.

NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.

BOOKS SELF-DESTRUCT WHEN YOU'RE DONE READING THEM!? How long after?!! Oh god, my house is a fucking time bomb just waiting to go off! Fuck! WhatdoIdowhatdoIdo!? You can return a book and immediately check it out again. And most books in a library are donated. You know why? Because actual thieves, who deprive the library of the book through theft, run off with them. Provided they don't come back, the library isn't getting paid for that book.

The point is, when you are done with the book, you don't keep the book, you return it. No one else uses that book until you do. There's only one user at a time, and the library has specific permission to do this.

A torrent site does none of the above.

It is not like a library. Libraries are full of books that the owners of those copyrights have sold to them. The library did not 'make a copy of the book' and then 'allow others to make free copies.' And, if you take a library book and use the library photocopier to make copies of the entire book, you've broken the law. They tend to frown on that at libraries.

Again, most books are donated to the library. Books are very rarely bought by the library, which is why if you ask them to get one they'll probably say "It'll be months if not years before we do that".

Libraries are done differently up here, but I can see your point.

However, the point still stands, that a library is not stealing the material, is not copying the material, and is not mass distributing the material. It is lending one single copy out at a time.

Fact: Every rationalization for piracy is self-serving and is meant to rationalize stealing. Look, if you pirate it, you are stealing it. Just accept it.

No, I actually believe what I'm doing is fine. Not rationalizing it any more than my other actions. Because after all, you should have rational reasons for believing the things you do. Just makes sense.

Doesn't not make it stealing.

'But it won't go away!'
Neither will murder. Doesn't make it right to kill people.

'But they make millions of dollars!'
How much money a product makes is not a rationalization for stealing it. I don't care if Walmart makes millions of dollars, that doesn't give me the right to stuff DVDs down my pants and run out.

'It's the poor screwing it to the rich!'
These rich people are not land owners taxing you to death. They are providers of a luxury product, which you have decided you want. You are the villain here.

I don't promote any of those reasons, but if someone tries to talk about poor developers needing money I'll start talking about that sort of stuff. Not because that's part of my reasoning, but to refute part of theirs.

It's not a matter of the 'poor developers' at all. Fact is, people work on it, they make money to work on it, and feed their children based on their pay. Lowering the sales of a product IS stealing, because at the end of the day, it's less money going to the companies that pay them to do their work.

At some point, SOMEONE who is not rich and is not making millions of dollars IS being deprived of money. At -some point- a family does get hurt by it.

'I just wanted to try it before I buy it!'
And how many pirated games have you -actually- bought? Really? REALLLLLLY? Besides, its not up to you to decide you get free demos of the entire game. It's up to the provider of that product.

Probably all but a couple, and most of the ones I bought and the ones I didn't, I wouldn't have bought anyway. I don't spend money if I'm unsure of the product. That's just good business sense. And why does the provider get to decide what happens to the product? That's a principle I disagree with on a fundamental level.

Because they own it. Using similiar logic, I like your house. I will live in your basement for a while, you might want to rent it, but I want to see if it suits me before YOU DECIDE to show it off.

Why do YOU, as the provider, get to decide what happens to YOUR stuff? You only own it. You don't have any special rights to YOUR OWN STUFF.

Fact is, just because it is to your advantage to -pre-steal- a product before you decide to give them money, does not make it right OR legal. In fact, what you are doing is taking it, making use of it, and then deciding after you are done, well, glad I didn't pay for it. And walking away.

If you're feeling generous, you MIGHT send some money their way. But why? You already got what you wanted. So the incentive to pay for it is considerably less.

But the thing is, you don't own it. It is not your right to make that decision. You don't get to put gas in your car, drive the car, and then decide afterwards if you liked the gas before you pay for it.

You don't eat your box of cereal before you pay for it.

You simply do not get to consume things before you pay for it WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE OWNER.

That is stealing.

'The internet is a new way to distribute content!'
Not arguing that point. That doesn't logically equate to 'so I should get everything for free.'

No, but it does logically equate to: "They're not losing a potential sale and a product, only a potential sale." and it could be argued that most of the time, they aren't even losing a potential sale. So in short, they lose nothing.

This is a circular argument.

'Well, the internet exists, and it is available for free. So I'm going to steal it. Because I'm going to steal it, they won't make any money. Therefore they don't lose anything because no sale will be made. Therefore it should be free. Therefore I'm going to steal it.'

Your logic predisposes that you're going to steal it in the first place.

In other words, you're using 'I'm going to take it' as the premise for why you should take it.

Bad.

'The entertainment industry is overproduced and provides crappy shlock that is overpriced, so I'm protesting that as a consumer.'
Bullshit. If you weren't interested in that product you'd not have pirated it.

Yeah, I don't think it's a decent way to protest crappy products. It is a good way to ensure that what you think might be a good product but turns out to be a crappy one doesn't get your money.

How's this? Don't waste your time on crappy products. It WAS good enough to warrant your interest enough to disregard consumer reviews, word on the internet, etc.

'It was a bad game, so it never would have been a sale!
Bullshit. If you had no interest in it (ironic or not), you'd not have pirated it. Hell, the entertainment industry has an entire section of it based on people playing to see bad entertainment. It's called 'camp' and it's been going on for decades. Your excuse doesn't even hold water while I'm willing to pay to go see the Room on friday night.

But would they have the sale of that pirate? Because if not, they have lost nothing.

Again, your logic is going 'Well, I would have stolen it, so therefore if I steal it, they lose nothing.'

Again, its circular and self-serving.

Read: BULLSHIT.

Piracy affects me as a consumer as now I no longer buy products I pay for services that are products whenever convenient to the provider. Now, I'm forced to sign contracts after paying for something and if I don't like the contract, I've ALREADY PAID FOR THE PRODUCT. (Protip: The EULA is not a contract under Canadian law, because money has already exchanged hands and therefore any pertinent contract about that product or service is already satisfied)

Don't blame me for the disproportionate actions of others.

No, I'm blaming pirates for breaking the law and allowing companies to have the ready excuse to do things to consumers that, had theft and robbery not been so virulent, they'd not be able to do or enact into law.

Pirating random shiz you WOULD NEVER BUY isn't stealing. You were never part of the consumer market or a potential sale.

Bullshit. Taking something you do not plan to buy is stealing. It's the fucking definition of stealing.

Stealing is the act of taking something that you are not willing to pay for, against the wishes of whoever owns it.

Yes, but you don't take intellectual property, you access it. With no taking, there is no stealing.

Bullshit. You do not 'access' it. You are -using it- for its intended purpose. If you break into my house, take my vacuum, use it in your house, and then put it back, guess what? You didn't 'access my vacuum.' You stole it. The fact I didn't lose a vacuum doesn't hold water. You took and used what is mine without my permission.

And when I am in the business of selling the use of what is mine, and fairly to customers, then what you are doing DOES do real harm.

By making it readily available, you are making it so that potential sales become non-sales. See, that's the part that you completely forget.

'It's available therefore there'd be no sale' also logically equates to 'There'd be a sale if it weren't available.' (a implies b is logically equivalent to not b implies not a)

Your motivation 'I never wanted to pay for it' only makes it STEALING MOAR.

Your argument is self-serving. The fact you're willing to steal because you expect you would not like the product only shows how callous you are towards the act. 'Meh this sucks, guess I'll take it.'

Access, not take[/quote]

Access without permission and with no intent to compensate the owner of that property.

Again, accessing something without permission is also theft.

I'll bet you still played through it, going 'Wow, this sucks, sure glad I didn't pay for it.'

How's this for an argument: If it sucks so bad you don't want to ever pay for it, SPEND YOUR TIME DOING SOMETHING ENJOYABLE.

That is the ONLY rational conclusion to that line of thinking. Everything is involves being irrational... i.e. 'I want to spend my time doing something I don't enjoy' which is an irrational motivation.

Either that, or you lied about not wanting it.

Yeah, that post confused me too.

No, I like to say "Why is it wrong? Just because isn't a reason. I can do that too you know. "You there, you're wrong for not killing kittens. Why is it wrong not to kill kittens? It just is" See? That doesn't work. Give reasons or gtfo!" Just because you're saying I'm wrong about being okay, doesn't mean I'm saying wrong is okay.

It is wrong because:

One: It is using property without permission of the owner of that property. The nature of the property is not relevant
Two: The best argument you can come up with literally is: "I was gonna steal it, so they lose nothing, so therefore it's okay if I steal it." That's such utter bullshit I'm surprised you even entertain that as rational thought.
Three: For all your talk of 'business sense' the fact is, you're not acting in a capitalist fashion. You've taken the concept of property ownership that is required for a free market to run, and decided that it does not apply because it is convenient, taking property rights on yourself. That is not capitalism OR business. You're not operating in a free economy, you're operating on the basis of seizing property for your personal benefit as pleases you, because you feel the owners do not have the right to their own work. In other words, fascism.

Yes. Fascism.

Hell, every time I see a 'pro-piracy' argument I can't help but be reminded of the concept of orwellian doublethink. I see such circular logic and an utter inability to connect events that ARE connected, with such a hypocritical stance as 'My rights as a consumer should never be violated. Their rights as a property owner are non-existant' that I cannot actually condone nor fathom it.

Point is... it's like if you went in, broken into a cable box, spliced the cable wire, and wired it to your house to enjoy free cable. All you are doing is 'accessing content.'

All you are doing is stealing. Just have half a pair of testes and admit it. This doublethink 'I'm not a villain cause they still have a sandwich, I'm just tasting it against their will they lose nothing' bullshit is cowardly self-indulgent self-entitled rationalization. But it is not a valid argument.

The fact is: It's -their- stuff. They have NO obligation to share it except on their terms, just like you are under no obligation to share your house, your car, your thoughts, your writing, your love poems to your woman, your laundry basket, your basement, or anything else belonging to you. Theft is not removing a thing so they no longer have a thing. Theft is the taking of their property rights for your personal gain without their permission. And you -are- doing so. You are using -their- stuff in a way -they- do not want. So what if what they want is 'those who pay for it get to use it.' They have the right to determine that. It's THEIR PROPERTY.

Apparently, that's what eludes you in this argument, is the fact that they actually do OWN it. Again, if you subscribe to another system of thought, then I can freely use your stuff as I see fit because -your- property rights don't matter either.

Oh, suddenly that's a different scenario? Hypocrite.

 

[slopeslider]

Another thing that I'd just like to say:

You know that 30+ minutes of DRM we have to put up with before we start playing any game. We have pirates to thank for that. Their selfish nature is not only killing the gaming economy but also giving us ridiculous amounts of DRM to wade through. Developers now don't have a choice. Pirates are creating an environment in which maximum profits come from Ubisoft DRM-ing us to death while the Humble Indie Bundle still gets pirated even though it's being offered for free.

PIRATES ARE UNNAFECTED BY THE DRM.
The drm is there to stop pirates.
but PIRATES ARE UNNAFECTED BY THE DRM.

I know, and we all have you to blame for this. You steal the games for your own personal enjoyment without worrying about the consequences for the honest people whom it affects.

Circular thinking much?
"we have pirates to blame for drm that affects everyone BUT them."
Please tell me how I stole something from retro studios by buying all 3 of their games at full retail and only getting it off the interweb because my disc scratched and they provide no backups or extra installs.
People always say 'you're not buying the disc, you're buying a license to play the game.'
Then why do I get no backup copies or help if the disc scratches? The disc should be irrelevant, I bought the game, not the disc, which is a way of getting the game to me. If the disc scratched, let me get a new one, It doesn't cost 49.99 for a piece of plastic.
Stuff like this is what makes people torrent. Never mind the fact I OWN THE SOFTWARE I paid to get license to use it. A software company wouldn't survive if it's motto was 'If your easily breakable disc is ruined in any way, BUY ANOTHER GAME LICENSE SUCKERS'
There was drm before there was an easy way to share games, piracy didn't drive drm into existance. It was pre-emptive, so you couldn't share your games with your neighbors, not because profits were down due to piracy.

A lot of what you're saying is very valid, it's not in contradiction to what I'm saying, we're just approaching it from different angles. Piracy (+) = DRM (+) = Piracy (+) It's a horibble cycle but it would cost game companies too much to stop the DRM so the only way to stop this cycle is to stop pirating. Game companies can't stop making DRM because they'd lose sales if they did. So if we want the game industry to stay alive we need to stop pirating now.

But why will they lose money? The drm isn't doing anything to stop people from pirating. If anything they'd GAIN sales from people like us who hate drm. Many more people would've got AC2 on pc if it didn't have a ton of drm in it, while anyone who wanted it free has it free. They pissed off customers and gave pirates something to brag about, circumventing their latest drm.

Just ask yourself: If I said I would personally buy you any pc game you ever wanted for the rest of your life, and all you had to do was wait AT MOST 2 weeks after launch before I buy it for you, would you turn it down? You'd accept right?
Is there some magical game that would make you spend $50 when you know I'll get it for you in at most a week(and usually I get you the games before release date)?
No sane pirate would turn down a free game for day 1 access. Once you get used to not ever paying for anything, it's hard to throw down $50 bucks on a game you can get for free in a week without the bull drm and install limits.