No, but if you went to the government saying "I invented a new electric generator, here are the detailing schematics" then you deserve rights as you were the first one to prove that you made it.
My grandfather tried to patent an invention... The patent officer didn't understand the concept even though a working prototype was sent in, so he denied it.
In a perfect world, all ideas from everyone would be protected.
But how much would it suck that some random who thought of your idea first has more rights than you. You both thought up the same idea.
As it is, only those with money's ideas are important enough to be protected.
Nope. I shot a guy at night, no witness, no finger prints, nothing. No accountability. Your metaphor points to pirates getting caught and tried.
Delicious said:
And what's wrong with ensuring people have to buy your product? Sure, the current versions of DRM are completely ineffective, but I don't think a non intrusive Copyright check is impossible. Look at subscription based games, for example. They offer a service that can't be duplicated or copied on readily available CD's and computers, and they are profiting because what they offer actually has value to it. Console games are also doing much better in the value department - they give me a way to play games without having to own a super computer, and it is currently very difficult for me to mod consoles. So I buy them.
So basically, you want 10 coders to create a system that 10,000 coders won't be able to crack? Good luck with that. Make an unbreakabe wall while you're at it.
Delicious said:
Here's my main point: Don't try to sell me something that I can get free, easily and without consequence. I don't support idiots, and if the single-player PC part of the industry goes through - tough. That's how the world works, like it or not.
You don't care about single player games. Why pirate them?
grayjo said:
Kubanator said:
No, but if you went to the government saying "I invented a new electric generator, here are the detailing schematics" then you deserve rights as you were the first one to prove that you made it.
My grandfather tried to patent an invention... The patent officer didn't understand the concept even though a working prototype was sent in, so he denied it.
In a perfect world, all ideas from everyone would be protected.
But how much would it suck that some random who thought of your idea first has more rights than you. You both thought up the same idea.
As it is, only those with money's ideas are important enough to be protected.
That's why science progresses. Not because anyone can invent and be rewarded, but only rich. The problem with sending in a working prototype is that it only proves that you are capable of creating that effect. It doesn't prove the process.
Nope. I shot a guy at night, no witness, no finger prints, nothing. No accountability. Your metaphor points to pirates getting caught and tried.
Delicious said:
And what's wrong with ensuring people have to buy your product? Sure, the current versions of DRM are completely ineffective, but I don't think a non intrusive Copyright check is impossible. Look at subscription based games, for example. They offer a service that can't be duplicated or copied on readily available CD's and computers, and they are profiting because what they offer actually has value to it. Console games are also doing much better in the value department - they give me a way to play games without having to own a super computer, and it is currently very difficult for me to mod consoles. So I buy them.
So basically, you want 10 coders to create a system that 10,000 coders won't be able to crack? Good luck with that. Make an unbreakabe wall while you're at it.
Delicious said:
Here's my main point: Don't try to sell me something that I can get free, easily and without consequence. I don't support idiots, and if the single-player PC part of the industry goes through - tough. That's how the world works, like it or not.
You don't care about single player games. Why pirate them?
grayjo said:
Kubanator said:
No, but if you went to the government saying "I invented a new electric generator, here are the detailing schematics" then you deserve rights as you were the first one to prove that you made it.
My grandfather tried to patent an invention... The patent officer didn't understand the concept even though a working prototype was sent in, so he denied it.
In a perfect world, all ideas from everyone would be protected.
But how much would it suck that some random who thought of your idea first has more rights than you. You both thought up the same idea.
As it is, only those with money's ideas are important enough to be protected.
That's why science progresses. Not because anyone can invent and be rewarded, but only rich. The problem with sending in a working prototype is that it only proves that you are capable of creating that effect. It doesn't prove the process.
Well if you never get caught or tried, you still retained that right now didn't you? You don't seem to be reading thoroughly, or you are just too thick to understand my points.
Here's the first point that you missed: There is DRM that does work. It just doesn't work for Single Player games. The longer we support this stupid honor system, the longer it takes for a good idea to surface.
The second point: I don't pirate single player PC games because my computer can't run them. And if I don't care for single player games, why not pirate them? Because someone on the internet might give me a virtual slap on the wrist?
Because by buying it, you are supporting the people who created the games. By pirating it, no money goes towards the game developers, and you may find in the future that genuinely great games will no longer be made, as more people appearing to be buying "Generic Shooty Guy #178".
Even though Batman: AA is out and I have the money to buy it, I just don't have the time to play it, I'm ever increasingly hovering my mouse button over the "download Batman: AA" torrent button because it would just be easier for me to do that because I have the means(uTorrent and a functioning internet connection)but morally I don't want to because I know RockSteady made an awesome game, I've played it round my mates and want to actually own it for myself which is stopping me from pirating it.
This coming from a guy who wouldn't bat an eyelash when downloading any other game or movie, or album of music, but I just feel that RockSteady deserve my money more than the other developers who have churned out tripe.
I won't download it, I'll buy it, once I have the time to lol.
And with that, I have nothing more to add to this discussion, except that certain tossers need to have a little perspective and stay off those horses which are of exceptional height. Not everybody has your exact experiences or even lives in a place where legit copies of something can be easily purchased.
However, lets say we have an writer. He writes a phenomenal novel. Now you say: "I want that novel, but I don't want to pay for it". As luck would have it, it's on piratesbay. So you download it. What have you done? You've taken work that someone else did, claiming it has no value to you, even though it does, as you want it. You've taken the money that the author deserved for the work he did because of your own hypocrisy. To say that you should be able to take what isn't yours isn't moral in my opinion.
Nice way to avoid my point about living somewhere where you can't GET a legit copy, like Hong Kong or an Arab nation. There are entire countries who make bank off of piracy. Shouldn't we go after them instead of Johnny Pirate Normalguy?
It's like how when the police declare a war on crime, they usually just mean the little guys who can't get out on bail, rather than corrupt national infrastructures or politicians who have affairs with underage interns.
Society is all about taking what isn't yours. You know what's "yours" by right? Nothing. Everything you have is because somebody else suffered for it or was deprived of it. Especially if you live in America or one of the richer parts of Europe that do a lot of trade with China and third-world companies.
I'm just saying the issue isn't as cut and dried as all that, especially with video games and the intrusive, constitution-violating crap they're calling DRM. Not to mention the escalating prices of games in an economy where many people can't afford the luxury. Or the fact that the person who made the game isn't seeing a dime of the money from it if the game isn't sold new anymore. Is pirating old GBA games that the devs don't make a penny off of morally "wrong?" What, is Batman going to swoop into my window and yell "WHERE ARE THEY?!? TELL ME WHERE TO FIND PIRATEBAY!?!" If I pirate an old NES, GB or Genesis game? What if I have a hard copy of the game? Am I allowed to have a backup in case the battery save dies? Where are the lines? What defines when piracy is selfish and wrong, and when it's a necessity in order to play that game?
I don't really consider copying protected information to be stealing, stealing implies a victim losing something (something more measurable than a possible sale). Illegaly copying games is a far more accurate description of what the industry dubs 'piracy'.
I'd also like to point out something that's been irritating me of late, in Australia, copying of games is a much easier to justify because publishers charge outragous amounts for games ($110 here when it's $60 in the US, given the $AU are worth over 0.86 $US). Is it even the game devs who lose out the most? I have some crazy notion that they are not given the extra $32US, so where does this money even go? Is it even fair that we are expect to throw more than 50% of the games marketable value into the abyss everytime we buy a game when we could just as easily circumnavigate the entire (flawed) system?
How about those of us with unstable hardware (for PC gamers who need to illegaly circumnavigate DRM), or who want to play games from other regions...is it still wrong for us to pirate? In Australia, it is illegal to buy games that have not been classified by the Australian rating system, if we are being forced to break the law anyway, what difference does it make? We are still (arguably) comitting a morally detestable act. If we are being forced to break a law (both equally punishable, however one saving money) in order to play a game, I think it's more than reasonable that we opt for the one that costs less.
Ok. An architect draws the blueprints for a house. He sells them for individual use for 10$. You decide to make a photocopy of your friends blueprints. You have now taken the work that the architect took into making the blueprints and decided it's value was 0$. Meaning the plans are valueless. So you don't want them. But you do. So you would say they have value, but you take them for free anyways. The contradiction is written right there.
Piracy has helped me out a bit, and cured my boredom often. It's too difficult to bother stopping everyone.
Rolling Thunder said:
Kubanator said:
Ok. An architect draws the blueprints for a house. He sells them for individual use for 10$. You decide to make a photocopy of your friends blueprints. You have now taken the work that the architect took into making the blueprints and decided it's value was 0$. Meaning the plans are valueless. So you don't want them. But you do. So you would say they have value, but you take them for free anyways. The contradiction is written right there.
There are a few takes on piracy, two of which I'll summarize.
One is that it directly hurts no-one beyond the negligible transfer costs unless it replaces somebody buying a copy of the game. Therefore, piracy's only wrong if it cheats the developers out of money.
Another is that it's use of a product deliberately against the developers' wishes (and called theft for propaganda's sake.) The product is for entertainment purposes and could hardly be considered deserved in any respect of the word, so going against copyright law and the developers' expectations is legally and morally indefensible.
Beyond one person paying for each copy of the game he wants to install, it's basically the free rider problem and gets fairly murky. The development system can support an abstractly high number of pirates but it requires a certain number of people buying the game to be profitable. If games aren't as profitable, then the sponsor for the development won't be too quick to sponsor another game, and both the pirates and paying customers get screwed out of a potential next game.
The fact is, one purchase of a preceding game is very unlikely to make a difference in the development of another game by the same developers. It's also true that it's nice to have $50 more than you otherwise would have. So, why doesn't everyone take that line of reasoning and thereby destroy the whole industry?
It's because there's a stigma associated with being a pirate, resulting from the very fact that too many pirates will destroy the industry. If people stop maligning pirates for moral reasons, then it will start to look like the situation in China (check out some of the articles on the Escapist.)
It's wrong to be a pirate simply because people are trying to make you pay more than $50 for that pirated game. It's a tax on your dignity rather than on your wallet, basically. Without it, the industry would die because there really would be no cost to being a pirate.
So, because I have the ability to steal the apple, I should steal the apple. That's your argument? Sounds like an incredibly anarchical and chaotic system of economics and morality. The fact is, you don't need evidence to back up piracy. It's a simple question of what constitutes theft. Let's look at the Merriam-Webster definition.
Merriam Webster Online {Sourced Below} said:
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
Therefore, for clarification, we will define "stealing"
Merriam Webster Online {Sourced Below} said:
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
Therefore, stealing is the taking of property, ideas/words (plagiarism), or credit without permission, right, or compensation. We can then move on to say that "piracy" (or the downloading of digital files without payment of some sort when those files are available for purchase in some other way) is akin to theft in that property, ideas/words, or credit are taken without permission, right, or compensation.
One cannot argue that you have the right to this material simply because you can get it for free. I can murder a man and it will cost me nothing but the dry-cleaning to get the bloodstains out. Does that make it right? No. Your argument is flawed in that it assumes rights and privileges that you simply do not have, and likely never will. You do not have the right to it because it exists.
To precipitate the people who will say "I only use it for demos!" I have this to say to you; if a company does not desire to release a demo for a game, then it is not your right to say "I get the full game of this and play it as a demo NAO." Granted, it is not good business sense for a company to refuse potential customers a demo of their product. But you do not get to make the business decisions for GameX. If you try to say that you do have the right to, then you are infringing on the rights of the owner/CEO of GameX to operate his company however he wills. The only "right" (and I use the term lightly) you have is to not purchase the product. It's Economics 101. If you don't like something about a product, you don't buy it. That includes it lacking a demo.
Gilbert Munch said:
Note:No-one on their high horses, saying how it's me who is ruining the world. Unless you have evidence to back up your claim, I will remove your comment from my reality and substitute my own.
Can I use ridiculously unfounded and nearly irrelevant "evidence"? Will that make you listen to me? You're being an idiot by saying "My logic is superior to that of the 'high-horsers', and thus thou art not allowed to express thy opinion in my thread" because you, essentially, block off the anti-piracy debate and stagnate it. That's all the piracy debate is; a question of morality in relation to rights and privileges related to private industry.
Oh, and my evidence is founded. You know, in the English language and an elementary grasp of home economics.
Definition of Theft [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft]
Definition of Steal [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal]
I won't pretend to think that you'll care about my opinion. Most of the pro-piracy people seem to be closed off to discussion and debate. I beg of you, be the difference.
*EDIT*
In response to Samurai Goomba's comment about "Legit copies are hard to obtain"
That is a bit of a gray area. While it is indeed unfortunate that you can't obtain a "legitimate" copy of a game in wherever you are, that doesn't mean you have the right (legally or morally) to take it for free. I mean, I can't buy breadfruit in Seattle easily, but that doesn't mean I should go out and steal it.
Firstly, I wholeheartedly accept your 'evidence'. I've said before that that wasn't the best way to put it, but I needed a way to end what turned out to be quite a long OP. And you make the assumption that I won't find your evidence 'acceptable'. Believe me, I do, you aren't one of the 'piracy is wrong. And?' people that have already come to this thread.
Secondly, you seem to think that my view is far harsher than it is. I am not a complete advocate for piracy, I don't think that all information should become free. It just doesn't work like that, and I realise that that is completely wrong. That's why I haven't given myself another means to download more things, and have completely abstained from the murky world of torrents.
Thirdly, and lastly, I have never said that I believe I have a right to the information. My point is more along the fact that I can't willingly make myself save up for a month for a DS game that I could easily download for free. Call me immature, all me young and stupid, because yeah, I am (hopefully not stupid...) young and there isn't much I can do about that. And no, I won't pretend to know about how economics works because you've proved that you have a greater understanding of it than me.
I have heard people refer to internet piracy as theft, but therein lies the problem. The definition of theft is: In criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.
Now, pirating usually means somone has bought an item, and is distributing copies of the item they have bought with their own money. Therefore it could be interpreted that consent has been given to download these copies by the person distributing them (on torrent sites, rapidshare ect). The snag however is copyrite(SP?), how does this work? If you steal someone elses CD, rip it onto your PC and distribute copies, are you stealing from the person who owns the CD or the production company for distributing it for free? Or both?
Can you really steal an item that does not exist? The production company did not make the copy you are downloading, it made the original copy that was bought by a customer! If the answer is no, you cannot steal something that does not exist, then Piracy will not be defined as stealing or theft, rather a breach of copyrite.
Or have I got this wrong, is breach of copyrite actually defined as theft? If someone knows the answer to this then that would be cool!
I have heard people refer to internet piracy as theft, but therein lies the problem. The definition of theft is: In criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.
Now, pirating usually means somone has bought an item, and is distributing copies of the item they have bought with their own money. Therefore it could be interpreted that consent has been given to download these copies by the person distributing them (on torrent sites, rapidshare ect). The snag however is copyrite(SP?), how does this work? If you steal someone elses CD, rip it onto your PC and distribute copies, are you stealing from the person who owns the CD or the production company for distributing it for free? Or both?
Can you really steal an item that does not exist? The production company did not make the copy you are downloading, it made the original copy that was bought by a customer! If the answer is no, you cannot steal something that does not exist, then Piracy will not be defined as stealing or theft, rather a breach of copyrite.
Or have I got this wrong, is breach of copyrite actually defined as theft? If someone knows the answer to this then that would be cool!
I'm pretty sure that it isn't considered theft. There's probably some legal words that describe it, but I'd simply call it 'stealing information'. Maybe that boils down to simply theft, but I wouldn't call it that.
How about those of us with unstable hardware (for PC gamers who need to illegaly circumnavigate DRM), or who want to play games from other regions...is it still wrong for us to pirate? In Australia, it is illegal to buy games that have not been classified by the Australian rating system, if we are being forced to break the law anyway, what difference does it make? We are still (arguably) comitting a morally detestable act. If we are being forced to break a law (both equally punishable, however one saving money) in order to play a game, I think it's more than reasonable that we opt for the one that costs less.
Well pirating (at least how I've come to understand it) is done by the target demographic. If Australia does not sell that game, I would not exactly consider you a pirate. As a gamer, I do sympathize with Australians. Their government control is ham-handed and unfair.
"As with all piracy, there are no reprocussions " - really?
I take it you enjoy the things you download, yes? So what happens if everyone decides not to buy anything because they can "get it for free" That's right, there would be nothing for you to pirate because nothing would get made.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these "never pirate anything" people. I do it myself, but I also buy things. I buy more stuff than I pirate and I don't pirate games because I believe they are one of the few media that are worth the asking price (well, a lot of games are)
The only reason you can pirate is because there are people buying legitimate copies. People don't work for free. That's why piracy can't be accepted and there are reprocussions.
The definition of theft thing is just a handy copout too. So what if the definition says it basically has to be denying someone something physical by taking it from them - that's legal speak but in reality that doesn't mean it doesn't matter if you "steal" a piece of software. Although the actual software doesn't "exist" people still spent time creating it and they need paid like anyone else - to me, that's what the issue is. Not the definition of a word.
"As with all piracy, there are no reprocussions " - really?
I take it you enjoy the things you download, yes? So what happens if everyone decides not to buy anything because they can "get it for free" That's right, there would be nothing for you to pirate because nothing would get made.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these "never pirate anything" people. I do it myself, but I also buy things. I buy more stuff than I pirate and I don't pirate games because I believe they are one of the few media that are worth the asking price (well, a lot of games are)
The only reason you can pirate is because there are people buying legitimate copies. People don't work for free. That's why piracy can't be accepted and there are reprocussions.
The definition of theft thing is just a handy copout too. So what if the definition says it basically has to be denying someone something physical by taking it from them - that's legal speak but in reality that doesn't mean it doesn't matter if you "steal" a piece of software. Although the actual software doesn't "exist" people still spent time creating it and they need paid like anyone else - to me, that's what the issue is. Not the definition of a word.
When I said there were no reprocussions, I was talking about the punishment-y aspect of it. They aren't going to come round and smash me to pieces because I've done it, so why shouldn't I do it?
I hope you realise with what I say I'm taking some kind of artistic licence... when I say it, this isn't what I actually feel, it's more like a question that challenges people.
Some 'torrent'-ers may feel like that (I don't do torrents, that's getting slightly more illegal) but I'm just using it as a challenging question. I hope you've seen the way that this has all been written.
Finally, I have never used the 'definition of theft' argument. I have fully accepted that what I have done can be construed as 'theft'.
Oh, and 'Sorry but are you stupid'? I hope not, and I don't think insults are a great way to start an argument. Sorry, but those are just one person's opinions.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
