Piracy is harmless?

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

What about all the pirate films you saw but didn't like? I understand what you're saying but you've still technically stolen them.

Well now I go into a long complicated explanations of my moral thinking...

Or I try and shorten it.

I often go and see new films at the cinema. And I often buy DVDs of films I loved when I saw them. So that's +2 karma.

I've recently become very picky about what films I watch.

I aim specifically for films I think I will enjoy.

Recently (meaning as far back as I can remember) I have watched:

Event Horizon (looking for DVD)
Shawshank Redemption (Went out and bought straight away)
A Clockwork Orange (Went out and bought as soon as I found a copy)
The Human Centipede (Really quite boring... mainly watched it to see what all the fuss was about)

So yeah apart from Human Centipede the rest I have bought / will buy.

I don't make a habit of pirating every film and then only buying my favourites. I specifically look for films I think I will enjoy. Because I don't really like pirating but I don't like wasting my money either.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

AFAIC Piracy = Stealing

...still occasionally pirate old movies or games if the alternative is just buying them on Ebay for £3 and I can't find them anywhere for legal download or purchase.

Or when its a game that looks like I may like it but its $50 and has very high system specs with no demo, so I pirate it to see if I can run it.

This, too, whatever happened to playable demos? I know some companies still release them, but in a world of quad core systems, dual video cards and the like, some of us would like to be sure of our purchase before we lay down $50, as we can't just bring it back because it doesn't work.

Yet, I imagine it's fairly hard to keep the moral high ground and rush out to buy a game you've just 'tested' thru piracy, when it's sat there ready to play. Not saying that no-one does it, but I imagine not many do.

I do think there's not too much morally wrong with pirating ancient games or out of print movies and music however, I think we all know that Earthbound isn't worth over £100 on Ebay, and I think the morality is balanced by greedy private sellers screwing people for far more than it's worth. After all, actual collectors will still buy these things.

 

[Kurokami]

The Escapist tends to have a harsh opinion of piracy supporters... be warned. In any case I agree with you. Our copyright laws are strange and somewhat ineffectual; the term piracy may be abandoned in the future, perhaps it will be replaced by something like file sharing... you know... what it really is.

Like calling rape non-mutual intercourse, or stealing unintended charity? Don't get me wrong, it is filesharing, but its still stealing, hense the term.

on topic, I fully disagree. As everyone else has been saying, pirates harm the little people in gaming and worse they effect what type of games are profitable and who developers should be looking to impress. I don't have a firm stance against pirating, but saying its harmless is, well, pretty damn ignorant really.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

Piracy is still stealing no matter how you put it. You have someone elses product without ever paying for it. Lets say I want to get Halo:Reach, but not pay for it. I can pirate it, and get it for free. I now have something that I did not buy. All because of what? I'm too poor? Well get a job.Cant't get a job? Well you probable shouldnt be at home watching movies/playing games/ listening to music. Dont like the person/company in charge of said product? While thats a valid reason to pirate/steal it doesnt make it right at all. Thats my stance on it at least.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Firstly, the whole is piracy = theft argument is wrong.

"Theft (noun): the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another."

You are required to pay for it and you didn't. It's theft.

Nope.
Theft, as you've so kindly defined, is 'the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another'.
With piracy, you are not taking and carrying away anything physical. You are not stealing a physical copy of the game from a shop. You are making a virtual copy of it.
If you'd have stolen the game, the developers would lose the cost of creating the disk, packaging ect.
With piracy, it doesn't technically cost the developer any money but the cost of the hypothetical sale, which may or may not have taken place.
Theft is theft.
Piracy is piracy.

You are defining 'property' as a physical object.

"Property (noun): that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner."

Just because you haven't stolen a physical DVD, you have still taken something that doesn't belong to you.

It's like saying, 'I didn't steal actual bank notes, I transferred the money electronically'.

You took something that didn't belong to you - that is theft.

 

[Fumbles]

"They make enough money as it is" does not work in a democracy.

Also, make fun of it if you will but the "You wouldn't download a XYZ" is a excellent campaign because it is true. If someone where to invent a car it is a fact that he/she should be able to decide who gets to use it, why should this change when we are talking about IPs like songs and games? If someone invent a game?

The money most always keep in rolling, the pirates just make the things even more expensive for the honest ones.

BS... I'd totally download a Ferrari

 

[Geekosaurus]

What about all the pirate films you saw but didn't like? I understand what you're saying but you've still technically stolen them.

Well now I go into a long complicated explanations of my moral thinking...
Or I try and shorten it.
I often go and see new films at the cinema. And I often buy DVDs of films I loved when I saw them. So that's +2 karma.
I've recently become very picky about what films I watch.
I aim specifically for films I think I will enjoy.
Recently (meaning as far back as I can remember) I have watched:
Event Horizon (looking for DVD)
Shawshank Redemption (Went out and bought straight away)
A Clockwork Orange (Went out and bought as soon as I found a copy)
The Human Centipede (Really quite boring... mainly watched it to see what all the fuss was about)
So yeah apart from Human Centipede the rest I have bought / will buy.
I don't make a habit of pirating every film and then only buying my favourites. I specifically look for films I think I will enjoy. Because I don't really like pirating but I don't like wasting my money either.

I know, I'm not trying to say you're a bad person, I was just pointing out a flaw in the 'try before you buy' method. Hope you don't take it personally.

 

[Jewrean]

It's a blanket statement that cannon be made.

Small time pirates like people at home who buy DVDs, Games, and Music from time to time but pirate the rest are of no harm. The way I see it, they are still contributing profits to the major corporations (which will eventually own your soul and would sell your ass in a second to the devil).

Large pirates (ones that sell copies at markets or ones that originally spread the copy in the first place) are the major harm. It depends on the context.

Oh and let's not forget that anyone who has already purchased something should be able to make as many copies of that for their own personal backups as they see fit.

As for the try before you buy thing, sure if you download a game and play one level and then buy it that seems fair. But if its a movie or if you play the whole game it kind of defeats the purpose of it. As for music, I don't see any harm in downloading a single song from an album to try out and then buying the whole album (which many websites and artists already allow you to do).

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

I know, I'm not trying to say you're a bad person, I was just pointing out a flaw in the 'try before you buy' method. Hope you don't take it personally.

I realise that. It's not the greatest system, but unfortunately I don't have the money to splash out on any DVD I think I'll enjoy.

The least I can do is pay for ones I know I enjoy and want.

 

[jowo96]

Well Piracy isn't harmless but its effects are negligable aslong as the majority is still buying.

 

[secretsantaone]

Firstly, the whole is piracy = theft argument is wrong.

"Theft (noun): the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another."

You are required to pay for it and you didn't. It's theft.

Nope.
Theft, as you've so kindly defined, is 'the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another'.
With piracy, you are not taking and carrying away anything physical. You are not stealing a physical copy of the game from a shop. You are making a virtual copy of it.
If you'd have stolen the game, the developers would lose the cost of creating the disk, packaging ect.
With piracy, it doesn't technically cost the developer any money but the cost of the hypothetical sale, which may or may not have taken place.
Theft is theft.
Piracy is piracy.

You are defining 'property' as a physical object.

"Property (noun): that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner."

Just because you haven't stolen a physical DVD, you have still taken something that doesn't belong to you.

It's like saying, 'I didn't steal actual bank notes, I transferred the money electronically'.

You took something that didn't belong to you - that is theft.

It's nothing like stealing money electronically. Because you're actually taking something from someone else.

With piracy, you don't take anything, you copy it.

Think of it as what counterfeiting is to bank robbery. You don't actually steal money from anyone when you counterfeit, you just copy it.

 

[tjcross]

i wouldn't classify myself as a pirate as i only "pirate" stuff I've already bought or that are one gaming console down from the current consoles (xbox=ok xbox=360 no) and there for not making the creators money anymore example: one of my younger cousins broke my jade empire xbox disk so i pirated it on my computer since i already payed for it but i don't think piracy is right but it doesn't do enough damage to be a major problem

 

[Geekosaurus]

Firstly, the whole is piracy = theft argument is wrong.

"Theft (noun): the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another."

You are required to pay for it and you didn't. It's theft.

Nope.
Theft, as you've so kindly defined, is 'the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another'.
With piracy, you are not taking and carrying away anything physical. You are not stealing a physical copy of the game from a shop. You are making a virtual copy of it.
If you'd have stolen the game, the developers would lose the cost of creating the disk, packaging ect.
With piracy, it doesn't technically cost the developer any money but the cost of the hypothetical sale, which may or may not have taken place.
Theft is theft.
Piracy is piracy.

You are defining 'property' as a physical object.

"Property (noun): that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner."

Just because you haven't stolen a physical DVD, you have still taken something that doesn't belong to you.

It's like saying, 'I didn't steal actual bank notes, I transferred the money electronically'.

You took something that didn't belong to you - that is theft.

It's nothing like stealing money electronically. Because you're actually taking something from someone else.

With piracy, you don't take anything, you copy it.

Think of it as what counterfeiting is to bank robbery. You don't actually steal money from anyone when you counterfeit, you just copy it.

That's a nice comparison, but you're still acquiring something that doesn't belong to you without the owners consent. No matter what it's called, it's still illegal, immoral, wrong and cannot be defended.

 

[Kurokami]

Firstly, the whole is piracy = theft argument is wrong.

"Theft (noun): the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another."

You are required to pay for it and you didn't. It's theft.

Nope.

Theft, as you've so kindly defined, is 'the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another'.

With piracy, you are not taking and carrying away anything physical. You are not stealing a physical copy of the game from a shop. You are making a virtual copy of it.

If you'd have stolen the game, the developers would lose the cost of creating the disk, packaging ect.

With piracy, it doesn't technically cost the developer any money but the cost of the hypothetical sale, which may or may not have taken place.

Theft is theft.
Piracy is piracy.

Wow, splitting hairs are we? Or trying to.

So a person accesses your files and finds your assignment for subject X, he copies it and uses it himself, you wouldn't call that stealing? Taking your intellectual property, not to mention any effort/time involved in creating it.

Pirating is a METHOD of stealing.

 

[Geekosaurus]

i don't think piracy is right but it doesn't do enough damage to be a major problem

"Based on these figures, the IPI concludes that Movies Pirates (online and offline) are responsible for:

$5.5 billion in lost annual earnings among U.S workers
141,030 jobs lost
$837 million in lost annual tax revenue
$20.5 billion in lost annual output to all U.S. industries"

Source: http://torrentfreak.com/the-cost-of-movie-piracy-to-the-us/

 

[-Samurai-]

Firstly, the whole is piracy = theft argument is wrong.

"Theft (noun): the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another."

You are required to pay for it and you didn't. It's theft.

Nope.
Theft, as you've so kindly defined, is 'the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another'.
With piracy, you are not taking and carrying away anything physical. You are not stealing a physical copy of the game from a shop. You are making a virtual copy of it.
If you'd have stolen the game, the developers would lose the cost of creating the disk, packaging ect.
With piracy, it doesn't technically cost the developer any money but the cost of the hypothetical sale, which may or may not have taken place.
Theft is theft.
Piracy is piracy.

You are defining 'property' as a physical object.

"Property (noun): that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner."

Just because you haven't stolen a physical DVD, you have still taken something that doesn't belong to you.

It's like saying, 'I didn't steal actual bank notes, I transferred the money electronically'.

You took something that didn't belong to you - that is theft.

It's nothing like stealing money electronically. Because you're actually taking something from someone else.

With piracy, you don't take anything, you copy it.

Think of it as what counterfeiting is to bank robbery. You don't actually steal money from anyone when you counterfeit, you just copy it.

Finally. Someone that understands how piracy is not theft.

Theft involves taking something that cannot be replaced, and removing it from its legal owner, meaning they no longer have access to it or ownership of it.

"Piracy" is merely making an illegal copy of something and distributing it. It does not remove a physical copy and make it unavailable to anyone else.

Also, the argument that developers lose money from piracy is ridiculous. Companies such as Gamestop, Wal-mart, Best Buy, or whoever stocks these games, have bought them from the developers. Any sale after that goes to the store you bought it from, not to the developers. The development company has already been paid for each copy out on the shelf.

What you're hurting is the store that carries the games. They have purchased the games and raised them to the high prices we all hate(they have to profit from the sale. If they sold them for what they bought them for, they would just break even).

 

[thefunk686]

I love how everyone refers to "huge corporations" like they're some terrible monster who eats children and craps out fireballs. You guys realize that these corporations are made up of actual people?

If you aspire to be a functioning member of society in the future, you yourself might end up working for one of these "monsters," and how would you feel then if people justified taking a cut from your paycheck because you put your 8 hours in at someplace that isn't staffed by 20 or less people?

 

[Geekosaurus]

Well then piracy is the retarded half-brother of theft. And as you've pointed out, it's still illegal.

 

[-Samurai-]

i don't think piracy is right but it doesn't do enough damage to be a major problem

"Based on these figures, the IPI concludes that Movies Pirates (online and offline) are responsible for:

$5.5 billion in lost annual earnings among U.S workers
141,030 jobs lost
$837 million in lost annual tax revenue
$20.5 billion in lost annual output to all U.S. industries"

Source: http://torrentfreak.com/the-cost-of-movie-piracy-to-the-us/

How much of that do you think is true? With the economy being the way it is, layoffs in large companies are unavoidable.

I live in an area consisting of mostly car manufacturing companies. Most of them have either closed, or had to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers. No one is buying cars.

If they suddenly decided that buying used cars is wrong, I'm willing to be that they'd lump in some of those numbers from the bad economy to get sympathy for their argument.

There is no way at all to measure the effect pirating has on any company.

 

[Talshere]

Imo the single biggest cause of piracy is the downward trend in quality of games and films a like. New games with new ideas and truly new content, draw interest and sell. Just look at the success of Dragon Age & Mass Effect, in a time when many developers seemed to have written off the whole concept of "single player" and "RPG".

Game wise. I think part of the problem is many people object to buying XYZ "2". Often these games havent really got a new story, have no new mechanics, havent even really got a graphics update, and you as the buyer are left paying 30-50 Pounds for what is, essentially, a map pack.

Splinter Cell is a great example of this. Not so much the last one (conviction) but the console only one was dire. Its "new" feature was multiplayer, it was effectively carried on the continuing plot, and wasnt nearly long enough to justify the stupid console games cost levied on everyone these days. That wasn't even that good. I dont mind paying for a map pack, as long as its PRICED like a map pack. And I dont mean this £20 COD4:2 map pack crap which is a joke (I hate them for ruining the PC moding community enough for this as is but thats a different story).

The problem is similar in films, overhyped, over paid, films that cost £6-£12 to spend 2 hours watching plus any transport costs (At my uni you need to catch a train there and back to go to the cinema). I dont mind paying a tenner or whatever to see a good film. But tbh, I can feed myself for a week on what it costs me to go to the cinema once. Then I look at crap like the expendables and ask myself do I REALLY wana spend a weeks food on this? I remember when this wasn't a problem. Generally you could rely on films at the cinema being "good" even if they weren't to your taste. But some much money and so many sheep line up to see bad films (read Twilight which pushed Prince of Persia out of all the cinemas near me after just 3 weeks of release before I had the opportunity to see it >.<) that you can garentee what you pay for will be good.

The final note on films I think has to go to the bracketed section in the last paragraph. Film leave cinemas to soon. I was DYING to see "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" I like Nicolas Cage as an actor. I think he does outlandish things very well, I'm a fantasy fan and it appeals to me immensity. RL circumstances have dictated that up till now I have been unable to go to see it. I've got some free time on an evening over today(yesterday now) and er....today, now. If I want to see The Sorcerer's Apprentice I have 2 choices, remember it has been out only 2 weeks and 2 days in the UK, I can go at 10:30am, which I physically cant. Or I have to go to central London to a cinema some 60 miles away in the biggest city in the bloody country at one of the biggest cinemas, and even THAT is only on a Wednesday. ITS BEEN OUT TWO WEEKS AND I CANT SEE IT ON A WEEKEND AT A REASONABLE BLOODY TIME!

This, I think is the biggest reason to pirate a film. Its the cinemas fault. If I wana see that before the DVD release it is my only realistic option now. In truth I have little doubt this will end up in my DVD collection. BUT I WANA SEE IT NOW DAMN IT! Id have WILLING PAID to see it and they have taken that choice from me because of The Expendables and The Switch >.< I dont think 2 weeks it too long to ask to keep a bloody film up!

The REAL joke is, if I wanted to, Avatar (The CG fest not the crappy airbender, yeah THAT Avatar, you know, the one which was released on the 17th Dec 2009!) at 7:30 on an evening EVERY DAY! TS 3 is still on at a good time which has now been out 6 weeks. Dinner For Schmucks, which could only have been better if it was never made, 20:30 every day, even Marmaduke, which was never even officially release in the UK as far as I can tell has better showing times than The Sorcerer's Apprentice (13:45 every day).


Its a JOKE!