Need some piracy advice....

[Guardian of Nekops]

Unfortunately, the logical alternative is a system that lets them prove, in court, that you read and understood every single word of that 500 page agreement. Like, a system that requires you to copy that sucker out word for word, in triplicate, rather than clicking "I agree". If you try to take away the company's ability to cover themselves with a legal agreement you didn't really have to read (and there ARE legitimate liability issues for them in there, in addition to all the bull) then their solution is not going to be to stop covering themselves... it's going to be to make it legally binding. No matter how annoying they have to be to do so.

That's the problem of whoever didn't read the agreement, really. Just cause you can scroll down and hit I AGREE doesn't mean you shouldn't read the thing.

I say that whoever agrees to something without reading it only has themselves to blame. Yeah it's tedious, yeah "Who's gonna read that shit", but it takes 5-10 minutes tops and you can avoid some problems. As long as you agreed to it, it doesn't matter if you read it.

Which is the way the current system works, sure. However, if you start saying these things don't apply to you because you were asked to sign it after you bought the product, and not before, then they're going to start needing legally enforcable records. You know, like any other contract.

Which, I'm sure you'll agree, would be bloody annoying to fill out every time the game releases a patch.

 

[Bobby Carless]

Hi, I remember seeing this comment on a different forum, and thought it was worth copying and pasting over:

I've seen it before too. Now here's why it's a load of bullshit.

"To all those anti-piracy people here, for crying out loud shut up and
get off your high horse.

Starting off with an insult. Not a good way to start a valid argument...

Piracy is not equal to stealing; that is a common fallacy. Digital
piracy is simply the reproduction of something that is already
existing.

Copying =/= stealing, and using a copy is certainly not
equated to getting it away from someone.

THIS is the common fallacy, right here. A game is not simply the 1's and 0's used in the creation of the game. When you buy a game, what you're paying for isn't just the data for the game, you're primarily paying for the legal right to play the game. Piracy is the act of illegally obtaining the right to play the game.

You are a non-entity until you purchase the product. For all intents
and purposes, you are still a random variable that can go either way.
Pirating a product does not change that. Only when you pay for the
real thing after using the pirated version do you matter. And if you
don?t? Well, you?re no more than a person who didn?t buy the product
in the first place.

Really, this bit is mostly saying that piracy isn't as bad for the gaming industry as they always make it out to be, which is a separate argument entirely, but it's also using that as a weak rationalization for piracy being perfectly acceptable.

The only reason why you?re all butthurt about it is because pirates
are experiencing something that you paid for. Boo-fucking-hoo. Does it
harm you that they are? No? Then shut up and drink your tea."

And this bit is just insulting and belittling everybody who thinks that you shouldn't be able to get something for nothing.

Any more bullshit?

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with it, just that it was interesting... No need to be hostile.

But what about the people who use torrenting as a way to demo games then buy them officially to ensure they don't get ripped off?

Is it wrong for me to ask a friend to lend me Skyrim for a few months while I lend him my COD? The thing I never understood was torrenting, by its nature is so close to sharing among friends. Only I suppose with torrenting it's like having millions of friends who are fine giving you a copy of whatever you're looking for. What's the difference? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Vegosiux]

Which is the way the current system works, sure. However, if you start saying these things don't apply to you because you were asked to sign it after you bought the product, and not before, then they're going to start needing legally enforcable records. You know, like any other contract.

I said that if they want to insist this is a licensing business the agreement should be presented on purchase. Can't take only the convenient bits of a concept and ignore those that are a bit of a hassle, can you now.

Which, I'm sure you'll agree, would be bloody annoying to fill out every time the game releases a patch.

Annoying? Yes. But sometimes I'm willing to trade some convenience off to make sure I'm not being had. 'sides, yes, that could result in lower sales because people would go "Fuck that" at the red tape.

Means the industry will just have to come up with something that's both convenient and respects our rights, hm? But no, why should companies have to spend money on that shit if they can spend it on manager payoffs, right? [/drooling sarcasm]

'sides, whenever a patch appears, I think it would be quite enough to merely highlight the changes in the contract - since you're still bound by everything else you agreed to previously. So yes, on patches, when terms change, the supplier should highlight the changes so you only have to read and agree to what you did not read and agree to previously. It would take them, what, three minutes? Just, you know, make whatever changes you just put in more visible? Change the text color?

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

Everyone who was willing to pay for the game has already paid for it. Buying it now would likely just result in getting it used and you'd simply be feeding the parasitic Gamestop.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

They do not have the same effect in the long run. One takes away physical copies others can no longer purchase and causes a chain of actual traceable damage. The other does nothing of the sort.

Insurance, similarly, does not actually duplicate, it replaces. Money is still spent and the products do not actually appear out of thin air. Even putting it in quotes does not make the comparison honest.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

They do not have the same effect in the long run. One takes away physical copies others can no longer purchase and causes a chain of actual traceable damage. The other does nothing of the sort.

Insurance, similarly, does not actually duplicate, it replaces. Money is still spent and the products do not actually appear out of thin air. Even putting it in quotes does not make the comparison honest.

But for it to make a difference, it would have to be a huge number of either objects or occasions. So for all intents and purposes, insurance will 'duplicate' the item. Because the shop does not know nor care where the replacement comes from. So. It's an honest comparison.

 

[Something Amyss]

But for it to make a difference, it would have to be a huge number of either objects or occasions. So for all intents and purposes, insurance will 'duplicate' the item. Because the shop does not know nor care where the replacement comes from. So. It's an honest comparison.

Actually, that's exactly why it's not duplication.