A potentially original take on piracy? Probably not, but interesting.

[w00tage]

What about obscure asian movies that aren't available where I live?

What about old games that are hard to find which there developers aren't seeing another dime from then anyway?

What about TV shows that I can watch for free anyway(assuming I have satellite or cable), but just want to watch during breaks at school (seriously, I have 4 hour breaks between classes sometimes)

What about really old TV shows that are hard to find and the developers aren't seeing a dime out of

What about games which are only available in japan?

What about old games I have owned in the past which I would like to play again?


If I have a reasonable means of paying for a product, I always do, sometimes piracy is the only viable means.
Megaman Legends 2 for example, a game which I would really like to own, sells on Ebay for a lot more than anyone would consider reasonable; Capcom doesn't make any profit from me being gouged by some Ebay douche, so why would I let myself be gouged?

Re things that are not available where you are, I think that the law doesn't cover them. For instance, it's not illegal to fandub a show that's not licensed in the US, but the instant it is, the law applies.

 

[Matthew Valkanov]

Do these people deserve the product when they cannot pay for it? Short answer: no. Long answer: revolution.

So nobody should dare give them a *gasp* gift. Since, if they can't afford it, they don't deserve to have it. So if someone gives it to them for free, they're the scum of the earth. Right. *ticks off another on the 'blanket statements shot down this week'* list.

This is what I mean with stupid silliness. You're weakening your own position by generalizing.

Good God, why are you looking for reasons to be offended? He means piracy, not gifts, and you know that, or should at least seeing how piracy is the theme of this thread.

Being overly pedantic is not a sign of cleverness.

 

[Rude as HECK]

It doesn't matter, because the central argument is that it is disregarding the basic rights of property that lie in the spirit of BOTH anti-theft AND anti-infringement laws.

IP rights are counter to property rights in physical goods. By declaring by statutes that one may not use their physical property to express an idea, it is a limitation on their rights to property. eg, see here http://www.tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/palmer-morallyjustified-harvard-v13n3.pdf

This distinction is one of the founding blocks of all Intellectual property law and policy. That it is so disregarded by the modern "anti-piracy" crowd is worrying- it shows they are forming arguments without truly grasping the underlying concepts.

And it is for that reason that, historically, and correctly, IP rights have been regarded as privileges. It is only the past 30 to 40 years that any natural right to IP has been seriously discussed, and even then only by certain thinkers (Nozick, Rand, etc).

 

[J Tyran]

Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you, piracy is similar. They have different textbook-definitions, different definitions in law, and do not have the exact same effect on people, industry, society, etc, but all this is irrelevant, for it wasn't my point.
My point is that both are morally wrong, on equal grounds.

Both equally wrong? I would beg to differ. If I steal a CD from a friend he is out a CD. I have deprived him of his CD for my own benefit. I have caused him a demonstrable loss.

However, if I take his CD and rip it to my computer he is still left with his CD. He isn't out anything. The artist who made the CD might be out of a sale assuming I would have bought the CD if pirating it weren't an option. If I wouldn't have bought the CD regardless, for instance if I was unable to afford it, then nobody is out anything at all. Nobody has been deprived of anything. The only thing that has happened is that I have gained the contents of a CD.

Furthermore, if you are going to claim piracy and theft is so similar to make no difference then I can just as easily claim that piracy and libraries are so similar as to make no difference because I can draw just as many parallels between piracy and libraries and you can draw between piracy and theft.

Go into a shop with a laptop and start copying as many CDs,DVDs and games as you can get your hands on. I wonder how far your excuse would take you?

 

[Rude as HECK]

Then you're infringing rights to corporeal property by mishandling CDs.
I'd really love it if the propertarian crowd would actually set out their ethical basis for supporting IP rights, because they really need one.

 

[VladG]

Do these people deserve the product when they cannot pay for it? Short answer: no. Long answer: revolution.

This is the kind of correct thinking not many are capable of.

The fact that masses are controlled by mass media (not talking about news manipulating opinion, just entertainment) is nothing new, in fact it goes as far back as ancient Rome who basically governed by the principle of "panem et circenses", bread and circuses. Keep the masses fed and give them some basic form of entertainment, and they won't want more.

It's an interesting idea of what might happen if piracy would be stamped out, but the flaw I find with it is the fact that there's still a lot of entertainment available outside for "free". TV, radio, the internet.

Still, being able to consume the same media as the upper-class certainly does do a lot to form the illusion that there isn't such huge disparity, aside from the "keeping them occupied" aspect.

 

[sailor_960]

While I can respect the use of emulators and the pirating of classic games, pirating recently video games is pretty much blatant thievery. Even if you go out and buy a game immediately after you decide that you like the pirated copy, it still doesn't excuse that you stole it in the first place. Can you imagine what that would like if you were to do that in a brick and mortar store?

And to the actual pirates I only have one thing to point out. You guys, the ones who pirate current IP's of any media, are responsible, however in directly, for the creation of SOPA and PIPA. Now let me clarify, SOPA and PIPA are basically broken laws that would have horrible ramifications if they were to pass. But their motivation? The purpose of SOPA regardless of its actual impact is to stop piracy, a thriving "industry" created by people on the Internet who feel that they are better then the rest of who are willing to work for the money that we spend on our hobbies, like gaming.

(Please note that the folks whom I mentioned in the first paragraph who are only interested in pirating games that you cannot actually physically get are excused from that last bit, just want to clarify that for you.)

 

[Hinamizawa Syndrome]

Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you, piracy is similar. They have different textbook-definitions, different definitions in law, and do not have the exact same effect on people, industry, society, etc, but all this is irrelevant, for it wasn't my point.
My point is that both are morally wrong, on equal grounds.

Both equally wrong? I would beg to differ. If I steal a CD from a friend he is out a CD. I have deprived him of his CD for my own benefit. I have caused him a demonstrable loss.

However, if I take his CD and rip it to my computer he is still left with his CD. He isn't out anything. The artist who made the CD might be out of a sale assuming I would have bought the CD if pirating it weren't an option. If I wouldn't have bought the CD regardless, for instance if I was unable to afford it, then nobody is out anything at all. Nobody has been deprived of anything. The only thing that has happened is that I have gained the contents of a CD.

Furthermore, if you are going to claim piracy and theft is so similar to make no difference then I can just as easily claim that piracy and libraries are so similar as to make no difference because I can draw just as many parallels between piracy and libraries and you can draw between piracy and theft.

Go into a shop with a laptop and start copying as many CDs,DVDs and games as you can get your hands on. I wonder how far your excuse would take you?

He was discussing morality, not legality.

 

[Rude as HECK]

So, we're responsible for the blatant crony capitalism of economically unviable giants? No, if anything the increase in piracy is a reaction to the economic inefficiency of intellectual property.

 

[VladG]

Do these people deserve the product when they cannot pay for it? Short answer: no. Long answer: revolution.

So nobody should dare give them a *gasp* gift. Since, if they can't afford it, they don't deserve to have it. So if someone gives it to them for free, they're the scum of the earth. Right. *ticks off another on the 'blanket statements shot down this week'* list.

This is what I mean with stupid silliness. You're weakening your own position by generalizing.

It's incredible how hard you managed to miss the point. This isn't about getting a gift, it's specifically about piracy, and the fact that if you can't afford something, strive to improve your life to the point you CAN afford it.

It boggles the mind how limited and narrow minded people can be. And freaking proud of it too... "another blanket statement shot down"...

 

[AhumbleKnight]

-snip-
[sub]*piracy in this argument means the downloading of media you do not own a copy of. It does not include cracking software you do own to remove DRM, nor does it include downloading media you do already own copies of. I personally do not take issue with those, and neither are illegal in my country.[/sub]

Your definition of piracy differs from others. Other people include in their definition what you exclude from yours. If somebody says that it is ok to pirate to bypass the DRM and doesn't mention if they did or did not in fact purchase the game as well then you may end up arguing on the same side but with different definitions calling each other's arguments bullshit.

My definition of piracy includes your exemptions but I agree that it is acceptable to download/pirate/crack something if you have already given the company your money and it wont work as advertised (or at all).

In general, i am getting tired of all these pro-piracy, anti-piracy, anti-anti-piracy arguments. Everybody claiming that theirs is the truth and all others are wrong without any evidence to back them up.
There are no real numbers out there for any of this. Arguments that say 'X number of people pirate costs company Y dollars per year!' are without any substance as there is no facts to back it up.

People pirate for various reasons and to claim that any one reason is void or more prevalent is also BS as again, there is no evidence to back it up. Not one study. Even if there was, it would have to take in many factors including but not limited to; piracy motivation, socio-economic situation, nation of origin, legality of piracy in nation of origin, etc.
Failure to consider all these factors reduces arguments to conjecture.

OT: That is a very interesting take on piracy and one I haven?t heard of before. It reminds me of the methods they used in East Germany to keep the people appeased (dirt cheap booze (and everything else for that matter)). People do need an outlet.

 

[Epona]

While I can respect the use of emulators and the pirating of classic games, pirating recently video games is pretty much blatant thievery. Even if you go out and buy a game immediately after you decide that you like the pirated copy, it still doesn't excuse that you stole it in the first place. Can you imagine what that would like if you were to do that in a brick and mortar store?

And to the actual pirates I only have one thing to point out. You guys, the ones who pirate current IP's of any media, are responsible, however in directly, for the creation of SOPA and PIPA. Now let me clarify, SOPA and PIPA are basically broken laws that would have horrible ramifications if they were to pass. But their motivation? The purpose of SOPA regardless of its actual impact is to stop piracy, a thriving "industry" created by people on the Internet who feel that they are better then the rest of who are willing to work for the money that we spend on our hobbies, like gaming.

If you forgot to pay for your case of Pepsi on the way out of the grocery store and the police response was to shoot you in the head, that would be an overreaction and the blame would fall on the police, yes?

Same thing here, SOPA is an overreaction and only it's authors are to blame. I COULD say that the anti-piracy hatemongers helped encourage the authors of SOPA.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

My most basic argument against piracy is simple.

Is what you pirate an essential to your daily life? If the answer is no, please try again later when you aren't such an entitled asshole.

Most pirates live in the first world, and they legally own the thing for which they are pirating (tv, laptop, games console) and at some point had the disposable income to buy said console.

Entertainment of this nature is a privilege of the rich/well off, not a right. If you were once in the situation that you could afford it and now can't, do you know what you do? YOu make do with what you got during that period of being better off, you do not turn to stealing/piracy whatever you want to call it.

It's the epitomy of the new 'First World Problems' meme. 'Wah, wah, I don't have enough money on me right now to buy Skyrim, so that makes it totally justifiable for me to get it by illegal means.'

Fuck right off you self entitled twats.

Oh, and if you were really striking a blow against the big corporation by boycotting buying the product, then you should have the balls to actually boycott the product. If your reason for not wanting to give them your money is so strong that you would not purchase the game, then you should have the strength and courage of your convictions to not own the game. Otherwise your oh so noble stance is just so much hypocrisy and hot air.

 

[brainslurper]

There is no justification for piracy. There is no arguing with the selfish assholes who pirate. If they have come this far without realizing that they are essentially leaching off a hard working industry because they feel that they "deserve" it, then telling them so isn't going to affect their view of things.

 

[Ickorus]

Was the game you purchased the one that was cracked and uploaded as a torrent? No? Then they didn't it steal from you.

This is the sort of analogy you're trying to make: You buy a pair of sunglasses. Right after you pay for your sunglasses, somebody shoplifts a pair. That person didn't steal the sunglasses from you, they stole it from the store. It would have made no difference if you had bought orange juice or a nice sweater instead of the sunglasses. They stole the sunglasses, and the sunglasses belonged to the store. End of story.

It's more along the lines of people stealing the sunglasses directly from the factories before they even have the chance of being sold to a store, the developers are making nothing from it, at least if someone shoplifted the game the developer would still make their money from selling to the store.

End of story.

 

[Epona]

I don't think it's healthy, especially in this economy, for gamers to be hating on pirates because they care so much about the bottom line of some company that they don't receive a paycheck from. For example, do you hate Wal Mart shoplifters as much as you hate video game pirates? Why not?

Wal Mart is a department store chain. They don't create products so much as they capitalize on the creation of products themselves. They're a middleman, just like GameStop is a middleman. The products sold there, the suppliers, are the people really getting hurt by the shoplifting. No sale for the product, no gain for the supplier.

Compared to film or TV, our medium is still relatively young; you could take a quadruple-digit fraction of the number of people who watch television in America alone and it still probably wouldn't equal half of the number of people that play video games worldwide. Therefore, the industry produces accordingly; less. For a medium that for a single game can significantly aid or ail a developer, the loss of one sale for one game is staggeringly crippling compared to the loss of a sale of something more popular or common, such as an HDTV or a pack of soap.

1) Don't think you understand how Wal Mart works. They buy products from suppliers and then sell them. You steal from Wal Mart, Wal Mart takes the loss.

2) Think you need to pay attention to how big the industry actually is. Some games outsell blockbuster movies. Modern Warfare 3 for example apparently outsold Avatar or so I read.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.

 

[VladG]

Summary: I think there's at least an off chance that piracy, as a whole, might be a critical form of wealth redistribution, and its elimination might have drastic and unforeseen consequences for the United States and the world.

Aaaand my faith in humanity drops by another notch.

It's sad this discussion that started from an interesting premise, and indeed a fresh view on piracy, not as a moral yay or nay, but rather the role it DOES play in our society regardless of moral ground devolve into "pirating a game is like stealing a car" "no, you are stupid, pirating a game is like baking your own bread with the flower you got from a field that rats would have eaten anyway"

 

[brainslurper]

While I can respect the use of emulators and the pirating of classic games, pirating recently video games is pretty much blatant thievery. Even if you go out and buy a game immediately after you decide that you like the pirated copy, it still doesn't excuse that you stole it in the first place. Can you imagine what that would like if you were to do that in a brick and mortar store?

And to the actual pirates I only have one thing to point out. You guys, the ones who pirate current IP's of any media, are responsible, however in directly, for the creation of SOPA and PIPA. Now let me clarify, SOPA and PIPA are basically broken laws that would have horrible ramifications if they were to pass. But their motivation? The purpose of SOPA regardless of its actual impact is to stop piracy, a thriving "industry" created by people on the Internet who feel that they are better then the rest of who are willing to work for the money that we spend on our hobbies, like gaming.

If you forgot to pay for your case of Pepsi on the way out of the grocery store and the police response was to shoot you in the head, that would be an overreaction and the blame would fall on the police, yes?

Same thing here, SOPA is an overreaction and only it's authors are to blame. I COULD say that the anti-piracy hatemongers helped encourage the authors of SOPA.

SOPA has nothing to do with traditional piracy. It is about corporate control, essentially stripping the right to due process.

 

[Epona]

There is no justification for piracy. There is no arguing with the selfish assholes who pirate. If they have come this far without realizing that they are essentially leaching off a hard working industry because they feel that they "deserve" it, then telling them so isn't going to affect their view of things.

So, it's ok to sell customers a product they can't demo nor return but it's not ok to download an unofficial, full game demo to avoid buying blind?