So what if I pirate games, why should you care?

[zehydra]

And before anyone says that they lose money from pirating; they don't, so don't say "Because it directly harms the industry blah blah blah", because it doesn't. It just causes a loss of a sale that may not have even been a sale to begin with.

The fact is, it might have been a sale. If the person would have bought a game if they hadn't pirated it, it's a lost sale

But that's besides the point. Why should pirates have to pay for something that a team has put a lot of time and effort into creating? Regardless of whether or not they would have bought it, they did not buy it, and therefore are getting a product for free that should have cost them money

A think that a lot of the reason that people dislike pirates is the sense of entitlement. Why should anyone get something for free that others have had to pay for, and that a team has spent a lot of time and effort creating?

I dunno man, I pirate games because I want to see if they're worth buying. Mirror's Edge great example - pirated it, got about a quarter of the way through, and knew I would buy it (have since bought it again but on PS3 for my housemates). Contrastingly, I pirated MW2 and played a few levels, wasn't really impressed so deleted it and never got very far through. I think it's only fair to reward developers, but I don't see why I should have to risk such a large amount of money for something there's a pretty good chance I won't like. All that said, I really don't pirate games much, and where I do, I'm probably more choosy than most people buying their games (I really don't like the idea of buying a bad game, and the conversion rate of pirated-to-bought is over 50% - a figure that also doesn't reflect the sales that companies have garnered from releasing sequels to games I played, enjoyed, and bought, only because I pirated them in the first place.

I'm not sure about the figures but I wouldn't be surprised if new IPs did proportionately better on PCs than on consoles because of this lower barrier to trying them. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the other way round either, I'm not convinced that that many of those giving these IPs a chance would then go on to buy them.

You can always sell the game. It's not THAT big of a monetary risk.

Sell a PC game? Really?

I meant with console games.

Where I live selling games is not worth at all, I dont even consider it. I prefer having the game collecting dust then just getting 5 lousy euros for it. One day I may get in the mood for it and give it another shot. So yeah, in here you buy you keep.

Usually selling games back to the retail is not worth it at all. I'd go try with ebay, which what I've been doing myself for some time now.

But regardless, I think I ought to rescind my first statement.

 

[zehydra]

If more pirates became Game devs, you wouldn't see as many pirates.

 

[moretimethansense]

I find that tough to swallow. Every friend i have that has a ds with an r4 cartridge uses it to get games like pokemon black, the world ends with you, bowser's inside story and the list goes on. These are AAA titles that sell everyday. Heck last month most of my friends got dragon age 2 through piracy, and i've seen plenty of other people playing games like mass effect 1 and 2, crysis 2, battlefield BC 2 all though pirated means. Saying these games wouldn't sell is just bullshit. The only title ive heard being actually paid for by them is Portal 2...If that is peoples excuse it is unjustifiable.

You cant seriously tell me that the games that get pirated the most are games that wouldn't sell. People pirate games that are good not cheap crap they dont want to pay for

It appears I didn't make my popiont clear, I meant that they likely wouldn't have been bought by the one that would otherwise pirate them, even if we assume that all pirates everywhere bought the triple A titles that they would otherwise pirate, I'd bet good money that a lot of smaller devs and titles wouldn't notice quite such a drastic difference in sales if piracy was somehow totally stopped.

 

[OblivionFenix]

Okay, let's look at it this way:
I walk over to my friends house. He's got a new game, so I'll ask if I can try it out...

Option 1: After playing a while I decide to buy the game and own it myself.

Option 2: After playing a while I decide this isn't worth my money.

And the other way:
I find some random torrent side and download a game...

Option 1: After playing a while I decide to buy the game and own it myself.

Option 2: After playing a while I decide this game is utter shit and isn't worth my money.

What's the damn difference?

I can't believe none of you haven't tried a friends game and decided to buy it or drop it.

Third Option is my way: I don't care what people do... You want to pirate a game? Go for it...
I wouldn't have bought 90% of my games If I hadn't downloaded and tested it first..


Rant over...

Problem is your use of piracy isnt what most people use it for. Sure using piracy as a means of a game 'demo' is pefectly fine in my eyes. But the thing about demos is there are restrictions on them in both content and play time. People dont pirate to test games they pirate to get games they cant be bothered paying for.

 

[OblivionFenix]

People cant justify piracy based on an ideological way of thought in it being used for good like game testing or a means of getting games you cant anymore. That is not why people pirate games. If you seriously think that your truly either naive or ignorant

 

[OblivionFenix]

It appears I didn't make my popiont clear, I meant that they likely wouldn't have been bought by the one that would otherwise pirate them, even if we assume that all pirates everywhere bought the triple A titles that they would otherwise pirate, I'd bet good money that a lot of smaller devs and titles wouldn't notice quite such a drastic difference in sales if piracy was somehow totally stopped.[/quote]

Sure the person who pirated probs wouldnt have bought the game anyway but if thats the case they dont deserve to keep it...
Also i actually believe smaller devs wouldnt notice the difference as much if piracy was stopped completely. The people i know all buy the smaller dev stuff because they genuinly believe in supporting those lower budget companies. I just didnt write that cos i didnt think it was relevant

 

[cyberblade507]

A good amount of retailers won't allow you to return games you've tried and have had no luck in fulfilling your needs. {...} Just because "it can be copied" isn't an overall excuse to not give me my money back just because others might steal or pirate the game.

Try returning most anything you buy. After you open it, at MOST stores "I didn't like it" doesn't fly. If it's actually broken on opening, most will check it to confirm and give you a refund/exchange, INCLUDING most game stores, at the very least the ones I deal with. Poor judgement/forethought/foresight does not a good reason make. You can easily check to see if you might like a game these days: reviews, Let's Plays, testimonials from the-man-off-the-street, friends, trailers, etc. Many of these can be found on launch day with little effort.

If I buy something and don't like it, which, being a fallible human like all of us, I have, I don't think, "how dare they sell me something I happened to not end up liking! I'm going to return this!" I think, "Man, I made a mistake. There goes $XX." And then I move on. If people could just return any item they didn't like with no consequences, fewer bad movies would likely make it to DVD/Blu-ray after failing at the box office because people would just return them.

Also, the gaming industry has been, as of late, hijacked by titles that overly trying to compete with each other in terms of being multi-million (sometimes billion dollar) companies. Valve, Blizzard, Square-Enix, etc. {...} Not to mention that there isn't much mainsteam, creative competition these days from other companies who deserve to have a greater chance than the ignorant first person shooter.

Welcome to Basic Economics: Market Forces. What sells makes money. Make another one and it might make money for you, too. If the customers don't want any more, they stop buying it and businesses move on. Pirating the game just makes you look like, and actually are according to the law, a criminal who should be considered a threat.

Another thing that comes to mind is the overall product I am paying for. There's barely any reason for me to pay full price for a product, that can be inferior to it's predecessor (...), when it isn't worth that much just because they need to pay certain people for their overpriced hourly wages.

So every title must be a marked improvement or at least equal, quality wise, to its predecessor? Failure is not an option? Missteps are unforgivable? And I'd love to see your source on these "overpriced hourly wages." Care to cite it? Programmers often are either self taught or college graduates, to my knowledge. Should such hard work be discouraged in our society? Should they be paid less because of it?

I thought the band Radiohead did something ingenuius several years back. They allowed customers to decide what they wanted to pay for the in terms of the album, In Rainbows, quality. It was a genuine step in the right direction for an artist to directly show appreciation and care towards their fans. It also showed a willingness to accept modern standards and conventions for the times.

And yet most businesses don't follow that model, at least not the SUCCESSFUL ones, even with digitally distributed content. Have you ever considered why? Most likely because it is not profitable or profitable enough. If they could make huge amounts of money doing this, they would. But apparently they can't. So they do things the old fashioned way: set the price at what they think people will buy it at and produce a number of copies based on the expected number of buyers. Unfortunately, in many cases they don't have the luxury of setting the price, so they have to rely on getting the number of copies right more, but that's a different matter.

What's more, game developers AREN'T artists. They generally aren't doing it for the art of it, they are doing it for the money, no matter what they say. Perhaps the individual employees are, but the company isn't going to fund a game if they don't think they can make more money than they put into it. Otherwise the company dies and they go hungry.

Even then, it's the videogame industry's job to make sure I the consumer obtain a superior product. If the product is over-rated, not worth the overall price tag because of certain lacking features, then guess what? Morally speaking I could just download it, send them a $20.00 "donation check", and I'd be guilt free forever.

Whether something is overrated is immaterial, not to mention subjective. Especially today with the second-hand market where you can easily get most things on the cheap. You can get many games much cheaper online or in stores sometimes just a few days or weeks after release. Want to pay $20? Wait. It'll get there. Companies counting on everyone subjectively thinking the same way and paying the amount they need to turn a profit is too risky.

What am I saying, in the end? That I the customer should have the right to determine for myself whether or not I have made the moral decision.

Interesting thought. Let's use the argumentative device reductio ad absurdum, here. Say I am a murderer, perhaps several times over. I murdered because I deemed it moral. I am not insane, I just see it that way for some reason or another. But society at large does not consider my actions moral. Should I be punished, simply for having different morals?

And don't tell me "you can't equate piracy with murder!" I'm not doing that. I'm refuting the basis of your argument, i.e. that one person should be able to determine if they made the moral choice to the exclusion of all others.

Or let's use the less absurd version that has already been thrown around. I outright steal from a merchant because I deemed it moral, though what I stole was not necessary for survival. Can the society which disagrees with my morals, or even the merchant possibly punish me or feel ill will towards me for my perceived "transgression?"

In my opinion, your hypothetical arguments don't hold water. To me, they seem like the childish, or worse, selfishly entitled objections of an impatient person who wants to set the price AFTER getting and using the product. In short, all the power and benefits of the transaction without any of the negative repercussions. They don't want to be equals with the company, they want to be superior.

 

[SoulSalmon]

imagine if cod got pirated too much that they wouldnt release a sequel.

Does this count as encouraging piracy?

 

[Sikachu]

And before anyone says that they lose money from pirating; they don't, so don't say "Because it directly harms the industry blah blah blah", because it doesn't. It just causes a loss of a sale that may not have even been a sale to begin with.

The fact is, it might have been a sale. If the person would have bought a game if they hadn't pirated it, it's a lost sale

But that's besides the point. Why should pirates have to pay for something that a team has put a lot of time and effort into creating? Regardless of whether or not they would have bought it, they did not buy it, and therefore are getting a product for free that should have cost them money

A think that a lot of the reason that people dislike pirates is the sense of entitlement. Why should anyone get something for free that others have had to pay for, and that a team has spent a lot of time and effort creating?

I dunno man, I pirate games because I want to see if they're worth buying. Mirror's Edge great example - pirated it, got about a quarter of the way through, and knew I would buy it (have since bought it again but on PS3 for my housemates). Contrastingly, I pirated MW2 and played a few levels, wasn't really impressed so deleted it and never got very far through. I think it's only fair to reward developers, but I don't see why I should have to risk such a large amount of money for something there's a pretty good chance I won't like. All that said, I really don't pirate games much, and where I do, I'm probably more choosy than most people buying their games (I really don't like the idea of buying a bad game, and the conversion rate of pirated-to-bought is over 50% - a figure that also doesn't reflect the sales that companies have garnered from releasing sequels to games I played, enjoyed, and bought, only because I pirated them in the first place.

I'm not sure about the figures but I wouldn't be surprised if new IPs did proportionately better on PCs than on consoles because of this lower barrier to trying them. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the other way round either, I'm not convinced that that many of those giving these IPs a chance would then go on to buy them.

You can always sell the game. It's not THAT big of a monetary risk.

Sell a PC game? Really?

I meant with console games.

Oh right, well I've never pirated a console game and wouldn't really consider it. Generally I buy the games from an exchange near wear I work and they're old so they're cheap. Also, we don't buy that many console games, more play a few to death like Mario Kart Wii, Fifa, and Gran Turismo. It's also nice to have the breadth of demos available (haha) on PSN so you can usually make an informed decision. Plus it's possible to rent console games so I see no real excuse to pirate.

Please note for anyone reading that this is idle speculation and I cannot endorse software piracy as it is illegal (and moreover I'm a software engineer so it conflicts with my interests).

 

[Flamey]

I pirate the games I own myself. I hate DRM, it's disgusting and annoying as hell. I always use a NO-CD exe.

As for pirating a game you don't own. DON'T DO IT!

 

[ManWithHat]

Spoiler: Long text of righteousness

A good amount of retailers won't allow you to return games you've tried and have had no luck in fulfilling your needs. {...} Just because "it can be copied" isn't an overall excuse to not give me my money back just because others might steal or pirate the game.

Try returning most anything you buy. After you open it, at MOST stores "I didn't like it" doesn't fly. If it's actually broken on opening, most will check it to confirm and give you a refund/exchange, INCLUDING most game stores, at the very least the ones I deal with. Poor judgement/forethought/foresight does not a good reason make. You can easily check to see if you might like a game these days: reviews, Let's Plays, testimonials from the-man-off-the-street, friends, trailers, etc. Many of these can be found on launch day with little effort.

If I buy something and don't like it, which, being a fallible human like all of us, I have, I don't think, "how dare they sell me something I happened to not end up liking! I'm going to return this!" I think, "Man, I made a mistake. There goes $XX." And then I move on. If people could just return any item they didn't like with no consequences, fewer bad movies would likely make it to DVD/Blu-ray after failing at the box office because people would just return them.

Also, the gaming industry has been, as of late, hijacked by titles that overly trying to compete with each other in terms of being multi-million (sometimes billion dollar) companies. Valve, Blizzard, Square-Enix, etc. {...} Not to mention that there isn't much mainsteam, creative competition these days from other companies who deserve to have a greater chance than the ignorant first person shooter.

Welcome to Basic Economics: Market Forces. What sells makes money. Make another one and it might make money for you, too. If the customers don't want any more, they stop buying it and businesses move on. Pirating the game just makes you look like, and actually are according to the law, a criminal who should be considered a threat.

Another thing that comes to mind is the overall product I am paying for. There's barely any reason for me to pay full price for a product, that can be inferior to it's predecessor (...), when it isn't worth that much just because they need to pay certain people for their overpriced hourly wages.

So every title must be a marked improvement or at least equal, quality wise, to its predecessor? Failure is not an option? Missteps are unforgivable? And I'd love to see your source on these "overpriced hourly wages." Care to cite it? Programmers often are either self taught or college graduates, to my knowledge. Should such hard work be discouraged in our society? Should they be paid less because of it?

I thought the band Radiohead did something ingenuius several years back. They allowed customers to decide what they wanted to pay for the in terms of the album, In Rainbows, quality. It was a genuine step in the right direction for an artist to directly show appreciation and care towards their fans. It also showed a willingness to accept modern standards and conventions for the times.

And yet most businesses don't follow that model, at least not the SUCCESSFUL ones, even with digitally distributed content. Have you ever considered why? Most likely because it is not profitable or profitable enough. If they could make huge amounts of money doing this, they would. But apparently they can't. So they do things the old fashioned way: set the price at what they think people will buy it at and produce a number of copies based on the expected number of buyers. Unfortunately, in many cases they don't have the luxury of setting the price, so they have to rely on getting the number of copies right more, but that's a different matter.

What's more, game developers AREN'T artists. They generally aren't doing it for the art of it, they are doing it for the money, no matter what they say. Perhaps the individual employees are, but the company isn't going to fund a game if they don't think they can make more money than they put into it. Otherwise the company dies and they go hungry.

Even then, it's the videogame industry's job to make sure I the consumer obtain a superior product. If the product is over-rated, not worth the overall price tag because of certain lacking features, then guess what? Morally speaking I could just download it, send them a $20.00 "donation check", and I'd be guilt free forever.

Whether something is overrated is immaterial, not to mention subjective. Especially today with the second-hand market where you can easily get most things on the cheap. You can get many games much cheaper online or in stores sometimes just a few days or weeks after release. Want to pay $20? Wait. It'll get there. Companies counting on everyone subjectively thinking the same way and paying the amount they need to turn a profit is too risky.

What am I saying, in the end? That I the customer should have the right to determine for myself whether or not I have made the moral decision.

Interesting thought. Let's use the argumentative device reductio ad absurdum, here. Say I am a murderer, perhaps several times over. I murdered because I deemed it moral. I am not insane, I just see it that way for some reason or another. But society at large does not consider my actions moral. Should I be punished, simply for having different morals?

And don't tell me "you can't equate piracy with murder!" I'm not doing that. I'm refuting the basis of your argument, i.e. that one person should be able to determine if they made the moral choice to the exclusion of all others.

Or let's use the less absurd version that has already been thrown around. I outright steal from a merchant because I deemed it moral, though what I stole was not necessary for survival. Can the society which disagrees with my morals, or even the merchant possibly punish me or feel ill will towards me for my perceived "transgression?"

In my opinion, your hypothetical arguments don't hold water. To me, they seem like the childish, or worse, selfishly entitled objections of an impatient person who wants to set the price AFTER getting and using the product. In short, all the power and benefits of the transaction without any of the negative repercussions. They don't want to be equals with the company, they want to be superior.

I have to agree entirely with all of this. I mean, it doesn't matter if you weren't gonna buy it any way, if it only affects "potential sales", or how "expensive" it is. You still have something you didn't pay for. No matter how you justify it, you are stealing, even if it actually is a good reason. It's theft.

Now, look, I'm not looking down on those who pirate games. Not everyone can be a shining angel of virtue who would never do wrong in the world. People steal things sometimes; it's just how it is. I would just prefer it that it just not happen so much. Or at least admit that you are stealing. Piracy is one thing, piracy while adamantly saying you're in the right and it causes no harm, IMO, is bullshit. It's like using a key to get into peoples' houses to take their stuff and then complaining when they change their locks. It just doesn't make sense.

Spoiler: link...

[a]http://www.pcworld.com/article/155315/spore_tops_piracy_charts_but_dont_blame_drm.html[/a]
This link talks about piracy and how DRM is a piss-poor answer to problem.

Spoiler: Cracked article about how gamers are sometimes viewed

[a]http://www.cracked.com/article_18571_5-reasons-its-still-not-cool-to-admit-youre-gamer.html[/a]
It's a cracked article, so take it with a grain of salt. It's interesting, but the main point here is the #1 reason. That's why they don't do the "name your own price" thing. It's rather pathetic.

Btw, the loss of "potential sales" is a load of crap. It's a loss actual sales, too. Actual sales is just a potential sale that happened. If you take away the potential, you take away the actual. It is a loss of money. No question.

So, basically, yeah, I care.

 

[rokkolpo]

it's like when people take drugs.
And drugs are illegal .

Drugs are very much legal.
Never had alcohol or a cigarette?
Those are legal and drugs.

+many kinds of drugs are good for you, if you use them with restraint.
Especially Marijuana.(which is legal in The Netherlands, where I live)

I thought it would be kind of obvious I ment the illegal drugs when I said drugs are illegal.
And no I never have (or ever will) have alcohol or a cigarette, and no, none of these recreational drugs are good for you.
Just look at all the deaths by cigarette smoking and all the problems (as well as deaths) by alcohol.
Cannabis may be legal in the Netherlands, but it is not in most other countries in Europe and America.
Now let's not go on with this argument in this place.

Where would you like to continue this argument then?

 

[rokkolpo]

Well it would he hypocritical for me to care about other people pirating games. So no, I don't care.
What I do in my free time isn't exactly anyone else's business, nor should it be.

Unless it's crime. (like theft)

Just sayin.

 

[THE_NAMSU]

it's like when people take drugs.
And drugs are illegal .

Drugs are very much legal.
Never had alcohol or a cigarette?
Those are legal and drugs.

+many kinds of drugs are good for you, if you use them with restraint.
Especially Marijuana.(which is legal in The Netherlands, where I live)

I thought it would be kind of obvious I ment the illegal drugs when I said drugs are illegal.
And no I never have (or ever will) have alcohol or a cigarette, and no, none of these recreational drugs are good for you.
Just look at all the deaths by cigarette smoking and all the problems (as well as deaths) by alcohol.
Cannabis may be legal in the Netherlands, but it is not in most other countries in Europe and America.
Now let's not go on with this argument in this place.

Where would you like to continue this argument then?

Don't know some thread about drugs =/?

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Okay, let's look at it this way:
I walk over to my friends house. He's got a new game, so I'll ask if I can try it out...

Option 1: After playing a while I decide to buy the game and own it myself.

Option 2: After playing a while I decide this isn't worth my money.

And the other way:
I find some random torrent side and download a game...

Option 1: After playing a while I decide to buy the game and own it myself.

Option 2: After playing a while I decide this game is utter shit and isn't worth my money.

What's the damn difference?

I can't believe none of you haven't tried a friends game and decided to buy it or drop it.

Third Option is my way: I don't care what people do... You want to pirate a game? Go for it...
I wouldn't have bought 90% of my games If I hadn't downloaded and tested it first..


Rant over...

Problem is your use of piracy isnt what most people use it for. Sure using piracy as a means of a game 'demo' is pefectly fine in my eyes. But the thing about demos is there are restrictions on them in both content and play time. People dont pirate to test games they pirate to get games they cant be bothered paying for.

Yeah, I know.
But! There are people like me out there who pirate to test a game and then buy, like testing a game at a friends house...
What I do hate is people that ***** about piracy and lumping all pirates together as scum of the earth...
Not every pirate out there is a idiot who pirates only because he can...

 

[Azaraxzealot]

No one should care in the slightest, but people love to be moral asshats and spew their opinions onto others.

especially the mods here on this forum
they'll put you on probation for mentioning you pirated a game you're going to buy when you have the money

and yet they admit to doing the exact same fucking thing! [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/editors_note/8783-Editors-Note-The-Broke-Gamer]

yes, i deserve every other probation i've received. every warning, but NOT THAT ONE! it's hypocritical. really.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

"wouldn't have bought it anyway" is an awful, awful excuse.

Like I said before, pirating is outright theft. You're using software owned by someone else, who is registered to sell it, without permission and without paying. So, the above excuse would in theory be applied to any other form of theft, right?

Somebody shoplifts and the freaking alarm goes off. Mall security or something surrounds you. "Oh it's okay, I wasn't going to buy this thing if I couldn't steal it anyway, so it's okay."

How do you honestly think that testimony would go down in a court of law?

okay. so let me play the devil's advocate for a second...

you buy a game.
your friend likes the game, but can't afford it.
you lend your friend the game.

BAM! PIRACY!

wait, why not? you're SHARING IT! they didn't have to PAY FOR IT! so is that not piracy there? no? because they still need the disc?

what if you lend them a music CD that they download to their computer?

is it the same thing? what's the difference between giving it to a friend and giving it to a stranger over the internet? at what point does "sharing" become "stealing shit on the high seas"?

 

[Innegativeion]

okay. so let me play the devil's advocate for a second...

you buy a game.
your friend likes the game, but can't afford it.
you lend your friend the game.

BAM! PIRACY!

wait, why not? you're SHARING IT! they didn't have to PAY FOR IT! so is that not piracy there? no? because they still need the disc?

what if you lend them a music CD that they download to their computer?

is it the same thing? what's the difference between giving it to a friend and giving it to a stranger over the internet? at what point does "sharing" become "stealing shit on the high seas"?

Your train of logic is a wreck.

Borrowing something is not theft because the item in question has already been paid for, its original owner did not obtain it illegally.

A pirate does not download something from someone who has already bought the game. The game was never paid for in the first place.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

okay. so let me play the devil's advocate for a second...

you buy a game.
your friend likes the game, but can't afford it.
you lend your friend the game.

BAM! PIRACY!

wait, why not? you're SHARING IT! they didn't have to PAY FOR IT! so is that not piracy there? no? because they still need the disc?

what if you lend them a music CD that they download to their computer?

is it the same thing? what's the difference between giving it to a friend and giving it to a stranger over the internet? at what point does "sharing" become "stealing shit on the high seas"?

Your train of logic is a wreck.

Borrowing something is not theft because the item in question has already been paid for, its original owner did not obtain it illegally.

A pirate does not download something from someone who has already bought the game. The game was never paid for in the first place.

says who? who says NO ONE paid for the game in the first place? it had to come from somewhere didn't it?

 

[cyberblade507]

okay. so let me play the devil's advocate for a second...

you buy a game.
your friend likes the game, but can't afford it.
you lend your friend the game.

BAM! PIRACY!

wait, why not? you're SHARING IT! they didn't have to PAY FOR IT! so is that not piracy there? no? because they still need the disc?

what if you lend them a music CD that they download to their computer?

is it the same thing? what's the difference between giving it to a friend and giving it to a stranger over the internet? at what point does "sharing" become "stealing shit on the high seas"?

You're mixing examples, here. Lending a physical item which is not copied and ideally is returned to the original owner is not the same scenario as borrowing the physical copy for the sole purpose of making a digital copy by someone other than the one that purchased it.

For the sharing of a copy, you have something of an actual case, but there are still problems. Once that friends finishes it, or you get fed up with waiting on them to finish with it, they must return it. If they refuse, they are immediately in the legal wrong and can be sued or prosecuted. But just borrowing something does not violate copyright laws.

The CD case, on the other hand, is directly analogous to online piracy. The only difference is that in this scenario it occurs entirely offline. In fact, this is one of the ways which can kick off online piracy if your friend decides to upload it for everyone else. They never bought a copy, just obtained one from someone else and copied it. That alone violates copyright laws. If my little extension occurs, then they could be further implicated. And if you knowingly allowed it, you could be brought in as well.