Poll: A situation in which piracy is OK? [Read first]

[Romblen]

I'm on the fence about this one. On one hand nothing is really keeping you from the game on the PC. I could understand if it was maybe some kind of circumstance where you already bought the game but you can't get it to work.

On the other hand, you already got the game once. The developers have received their money for their game. If you bought it on the PC, you would paying again for the same game, without any extra content.

I can't really decide either way.

 

[biggskanz]

No.

Call me a sheep, but breaking the law is not okay. Protesting against laws is okay, but breaking them is not.

Sheep. What if the law is unethical like the fugitive slave act, and you're harboring slaves? Is it then ok to break the law? Or should you return the slaves but protest the law.

legal != moral

I said this on another similar thread but calling it piracy is misleading. It makes the act sound worse than it really is. It's like calling hemp marijuana. It is done so for political reasons to sway public opinion. Even calling it theft is misleading since you're making a copy not physically stealing something.

If you call it what it actually is, copyright infringement, then you can begin to make a more informed decision on what is actually "right" and "wrong."

 

[daydreamerdeluxe]

and ripping a film off of the disc is morally dubious.

I have to ask: why?

The act of ripping a disc itself is perfectly fine, as far as I can tell. However, it's entirely possible to then distribute it to anyone and everyone, and I've had people accuse me of piracy for ripping a DVD to put the film on my iPod. If one person believes something is fine, whilst another person accuses you of being immoral, that's pretty much the definition of "morally dubious"

 

[gibboss28]

Stop trying to justify your actions, if your going to do it just do it.

 

[evilneko]

and ripping a film off of the disc is morally dubious.

I have to ask: why?

The act of ripping a disc itself is perfectly fine, as far as I can tell. However, it's entirely possible to then distribute it to anyone and everyone, and I've had people accuse me of piracy for ripping a DVD to put the film on my iPod. If one person believes something is fine, whilst another person accuses you of being immoral, that's pretty much the definition of "morally dubious"

I'll just have to disagree then. There is absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with ripping a DVD, or in converting any type of media to another format.

 

[MordinSolus]

You paid for the game (no five-finger-discount), but altered it so that it goes on something else...Hmm...This is tough...I would say that that's fine.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

My copy of Oblivion became unreadable on Xbox did I get the next copy for free because I had already bought it once? No.

 

[MikailCaboose]

Well, if you're pirating a game that you already own (say, GBA) for the same system (say, again GBA), then yeah, I support that, since it's the same as if you burn yourself a digital copy of a DVD. That, or if it's Touhou, since it's damn near impossible to legitimately get them even in Japan, and ZUN even supports the piracy of the official Touhou games.

But to pirate for a game that you own on a completely different system, erm...
I'm undecided, but leaning more towards a no on this.

 

[Gregg Lonsdale]

In this case the piracy is ethically sound. The reason piracy is normally ethically wrong is because the company that developed the game put in a lot of time, effort and money to make the game for the consumers, and are entitled to reimbursement from the people who play the game (in the form of money). However, no matter how many copies one person buys, you only get one playing experience, and they only had to make it once. So by this definition, piracy would be okay in this case. Now, one could argue that the devs would have had to put in some effort and money to port the game across consoles, making this piracy ethically dubious because they have lost out on money again, though it would be an insignificant amount. So if you really want to be sure, send bethesda $5 in an envelope. It'll probably just go to some mail-room clerk, but at least you made the effort.

 

[Total LOLige]

Pirate it until you've got the dosh to pay for it, sort of like a try before you buy

 

[Versuvius]

I voted option 3

Seriously. Im a piss poor student and while the option to get free not overpriced games, im going to take it. titles i can get on say, GoG i wont pirate. Same for steam if it isnt a ludicrously priced new release. I mean look at bulletstorm. I could pay 40 quid for 7 hours of gameplay (I ran it in that) with no replay value and some crap multiplayer. Or i could pirate it and do it in 7 hours and avoid the multiplayer altogether. Id say thats a win.

 

[Mr. 47]

Heh, tied it up between 'yes' and 'no'.

Unless it is a VERY old game, or a game that you can not get in your current area, and cannnot ship for whatever reason, it is wrong. It's like buying a movie on DVD, then getting a Blu-Ray player, then stealing said movie on Blu-Ray. You already saw it and bought it, but it is still stealing, and is still wrong. :|

 

[Forum_Name]

New code = new product = new purchase.

I'm down with making an archive copy for later, but that's not what you're describing.

Why do you need even to play the game on two console systems?

 

[LikeDustInTheWind]

Snippety snip.

In my opinion, it's not piracy if you never would have bought the PC version. That's really the only problem with it, if you would have bought it the devs lost a sale, if you never would have bought it, they aren't losing shit. So that's really the question at the end of it. For your story I still say no anyway, though.

 

[conflictofinterests]

So, I present you with a moral dilemma of sorts. Let's say you're awaiting a game that will be released on major consoles (xbox and ps3) and on the PC. Let's call that game Skyrim. You run to buy the copy of the game for your console of choice, due to wanting a cleaner and perhaps more graphically impressive experience while playing (depending on your computer). However you also want the game on your PC, for all the amazing modding and other benefits. You cannot afford to buy the game for both, and are worried that you will not be able to achieve optimal levels of performance if you do buy it for your pc, leaving you short of (game price here) bucks, quid or zimbabwean dollars. SO here's a dilemma. You go out and buy the game for the console of choice (xbox or ps3) and decide to pirate it for the PC. Is this fair and morally right? You have already bought the game, shouldn't you have the choice to get it for free on the PC also? discuss, please.

Why not wait for GOTY edition? There! Problem solved!

 

[TiefBlau]

I think it's the right thing to do, but it's still piracy

 

[Dogstile]

My copy of Oblivion became unreadable on Xbox did I get the next copy for free because I had already bought it once? No.

Legally, you could obtain a backup for your Xbox copy as licenses allow you to do so, as long as its for your own person.

The shop won't let you have it for free, but you can reduce cost a fair amount and it will be legal! How about that! Pretty good eh?

 

[DarthFennec]

Nice post, except for the part I left in your quote.

That's really entitled. You only pay for what you like, and if you don't like it, you pirate it as some sort of a stand against Hollywood?

Please, grace us simple folk with your God like knowledge of what 'deserves' to be paid for, and what doesn't.

So far we have The Expendables movie doesn't deserve to profit, but Scott Pilgrim does...

Please continue. This is fascinating.

It's very simple. As I've said, it's all based on opinion. I didn't like Expendables, so I don't think it deserves my money. Someone else may have liked it and in that case it certainly deserves theirs. I enjoyed Scott Pilgrim, it was entertaining for me, so its creators deserve my support. But if someone goes to Scott Pilgrim and hates it, I don't think they should be made to pay for it. I hope that makes a little more sense. The point of a movie is to entertain. So, we should pay for a movie depending on how entertaining we find it. In the current system, we pay for it depending on how entertaining we think we might find it, or how entertaining we hope it might be, and I see that as a serious flaw in the industry.

It's not that I have some stand against Hollywood, or that I'm `getting back' at them for making bad movies, it's just that it logically makes sense to do this. If something's big at the box office, Hollywood makes more of it. I want more movies that I like. Therefore, it makes sense for me to support the movies I like at the box office, so I get more of them later. It also makes sense to not support movies I don't like, because that will promote less of the same in the future.