Need some piracy advice....

[fenrizz]

Did not bother to read the whole thread, but this is to the OP.

Don't be a snitch, no one likes a bloody snitch.
Especially snitching over such a trivial crime.

 

[Baldr]

They have the same effect in the long run. Insurance 'duplicates' lost physical stock. Piracy causes lost sales through duplication. While the item is still present, somebody has the original, or the copy, without paying for it. That's just not cricket.

Here is where the "piracy equals theft" thing falls apart, as it inevitably does. Theft is the taking of money (or an object) that someone else owns, whereas piracy is at worst a lost sale -- the taking of money that hasn't been earned yet. Piracy is accused of taking from a company money which was never in that company's hands to begin with.

That is already shaky ground for equating it with theft and it only holds up (such as it is) by making the assumption that piracy is a lost sale. The assumption is that, were it not for piracy, the copies which were pirated would instead have been purchased. This cannot be supported by any kind of evidence or reasoning, and even if it could, you're just speculating about something which never happened, speculating about copies which were never purchased.

What piracy really is, is "unauthorized copying of data". That's all. Any attempt to label it as "theft" or whatever else is equivocation; it's attempting to manipulate the vocabulary of the debate to serve as propaganda for your own point.

Wrong, your theory is incorrect. If your playing a game that means you already deem it some value. If your not paying the same value as everyone else who plays the game, then your stealing. (Games are service, not physical) There is always cheap ways to get games and demos: Redbox, Blockbuster, Gamefly, Onlive, Gaikai, and Steam just to name a few.

 

[targren]

Wrong, your theory is incorrect. If your playing a game that means you already deem it some value. If your not paying the same value as everyone else who plays the game, then your stealing.

No, you're not. If taking the item doesn't deprive someone else of the item (not "the sale," not "the money the item would have cost," but the item itself) then it's not stealing. You can parrot this all you want, but it's dishonest and it does your cause more harm than good to defend it with faulty arguments.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Tell his parents.

 

[targren]

If I cannot get around DRM by setting my computer clock to 2257, then they're ignoring the law and banking on the fact that they can buy another extension when whatever big old property (probably Steamboat Willie, again) comes up for expiration.

It would appear that the only flaw in your argument is logic.

How do you figure? Copyright, by law, is currently set at life of creator + 95 years, and it's safe to assume that the creator is not going to live to be 150.

 

[Tanakh]

The OP is in the UK so I'm using English law. s.1 Theft Act 1986 defines theft as the appropriation of property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive, steal shall be construed accordingly. Rank Film v Video Information Centre and R v Lloyd clearly shows that theft offences are not appropriate for copyright infringement. And using "steal" in a casual context here doesn't make any sense if there has been no stealing in legal terms.

Aaand suspended.... well, pm or quote me if you want to continue this after the suspension. But yeah, with the current wording in UK piracy won't be theft, it will be in some US states and in Mexico though, so categorically saying it's not the same is a mistake, and that was my point, you need to contextualize and for the sake of intelectual honesty disclaim you will be wrong depending on the context. Also, using words in casual context makes all the sense in the world even if they don't correspond to the legal ones and WTF, that definition of UK is BS, i want to see the law prove intent to deprive in every theft case! just stupid.

 

[targren]

If I cannot get around DRM by setting my computer clock to 2257, then they're ignoring the law and banking on the fact that they can buy another extension when whatever big old property (probably Steamboat Willie, again) comes up for expiration.

It would appear that the only flaw in your argument is logic.

How do you figure? Copyright, by law, is currently set at life of creator + 95 years, and it's safe to assume that the creator is not going to live to be 150.

Your logic fails because it is 2012 right now and not 2257.

In other words, my logic fails because you're deliberately choosing to miss the point.

If the DRM doesn't auto-destruct with the passage of the requisite time and make the copy freely available, then, if the company were to crater tomorrow, the work would never fall into the public domain as it should. It's a question of intent.

 

[fenrizz]

theiving of deserving companys is unacceptable.

Piracy isn't theft. Developers do not loose anything from piracy. A lost sale is not thievery. Just had to put that out there.

Yes. It is. Do NOT try to defend it. You are only making up excuses to make it seemed justified when it's NOT!

I'm very sorry to be the one to have to break it to you, but piracy is not the same as theft.

Insisting that piracy is not theft is not a way to make it seem justified, it is only fact.
I suggest you educate yourself more on the subject (i.e. lurk moar) before posting on this subject again.

 

[Tanakh]

I recommend setting this as your desktop background until the message finally drills its way through your skull.

So, out of logical arguments? In a pickle because the definition of theft doesn't require the remove of the original? kk

gg

 

[Vegosiux]

I recommend setting this as your desktop background until the message finally drills its way through your skull.

So, out of logical arguments? In a pickle because the definition of theft doesn't require the remove of the original? kk

gg

Actually, the legal definition of theft requires just that. And not only does it require removal of original, it also requires the intent to permanently deprive the owner of said original.

That's why for example, joyriding isn't equal to grand theft auto - cause after a joyride you return the car, so you haven't actually stolen it.

kk

gg

Two simple statements, get them into your head people:

1) Piracy isn't theft.
2) Saying that piracy isn't theft isn't an attempt to justify piracy, it's stating a simple fact. It's like saying "red is not green" or "an apple is not an orange".

 

[Optiluiz]

He CAN'T pay for it or WON'T pay for it? There's a difference. Here in Brazil games are way overpriced, and 90% of gamers wouldn't be able to play more than one game a year were it not for piracy. But that's a different case.

 

[kasperbbs]

Well thats just messed up, i doubt that he really is a friend of yours. It's not like he stole someones TV or hit somebody with a car and ran away, even then most people wouldn't rat out their friends. Seriously though, who would try to get their friends in trouble for a copyright violation? If you really wanted to you could pin it on anyone these days, even lending your games is apparently illegal now.

 

[Baldr]

I recommend setting this as your desktop background until the message finally drills its way through your skull.

So, out of logical arguments? In a pickle because the definition of theft doesn't require the remove of the original? kk

gg

Actually, the legal definition of theft requires just that. And not only does it require removal of original, it also requires the intent to permanently deprive the owner of said original.

That's why for example, joyriding isn't equal to grand theft auto - cause after a joyride you return the car, so you haven't actually stolen it.

kk

gg

Two simple statements, get them into your head people:

1) Piracy isn't theft.
2) Saying that piracy isn't theft isn't an attempt to justify piracy, it's stating a simple fact. It's like saying "red is not green" or "an apple is not an orange".

Here the definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services

Games are a service commodity, not a physical commodity.

 

[SEXTON HALE]

You're friend sounds like he is kind of a dick.
Thats got to be one of the worst excuses for justifying piracy ive ever heard.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

He said that he was completely justified in taking it at as he did'nt want to pay for it, which in my opinion is a terrible excuse.

That's... a bit of an understatement. It's a complete lack of a justification... more a motive for the crime than a defense, really.

Unfortunately, any reaction from Bethseda is either going to be not enough (as in ignoring you completely) or crushingly too much. The fair penalty, assuming the game costs 60 bucks (and I know it doesn't any more, but work with me) would be to make him pay, like, 75-100 dollars for it and call it a day. That's enough to be a punishment without sending anyone into bankruptcy, but unfortunately it's not worth the amount of money Bethseda would have to pay somebody to pursue a settlement. That's why they either won't bother at all or they'll slap him with some ridiculous 10 thousand dollar lawsuit, because the middle ground there is just plain wasted money for them.

Unfortunately, all the other avenues of justice that would be amusing are, themselves, illegal. Deleting everything off his hard drive and leaving a note as to why, for example, would be about the right level of punishment (assuming he doesn't handle anything truly important, which is likely the case) but is, again, highly illegal in and of itself.

I think you're out of luck.

 

[Vegosiux]

Here the definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services

Games are a service commodity, not a physical commodity.

Why don't you read that definition again, hm? Games are still "goods". They're not "services". They're still a "product".

And...."service commodity"? No, sorry, something is either a service or a commodity. Not both.