Poll: Piracy is legal

[Morph]

I don't think pirates are bad people, but that doesn't mean piracy isn't a morally wrong thing. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with it? Only a few providers are at risk of getting caught, everyone who doesn't pirate does it because they think it's morally right, not because they're afraid of getting punished.

Honestly, you see nothing morally wrong with piracy?

I think it's morally wrong on the same level that jaywalking is morally wrong. As in, not very.

The problem with talking about piracy as a moral question is that it opens up a whole bag of moral quandaries that you don't really need to address. Let's say copyright infringement is morally wrong in the basis that you are deriving the benefit of a creator's work without paying for it. Under that framework, I can think of a number of equally wrong but socially acceptable activities, such as;

- borrowing a book from a friend
- buying a used video game
- accepting a hand-me-down iPhone from a sibling
- reading a comic book or a magazine in the store
- watching a DVD of the Avengers at a friend's house
- listening to music played on your friend's music player
- watching a clip of a comedian's stand-up routine on Youtube

You can keep going. Under the moral framework for copyright infringement, literally any scenario where you obtain the benefit of a work - reading it, watching it, listening to it - without paying money to the artist is morally wrong. That's unworkable. There isn't a single human being in the first world who hasn't done one of those items on the list at some point in their lives. They're all about as malicious as eating the last slice of cake, or telling your girlfriend she doesn't look fat in those jeans.

Add that to the fact that, as I said, if you take a moral view of copyright law it's morally wrong to pay anyone other than the creator. How much of the money made from music and films goes to the creators and how much goes to the lobbyists and industry powerbrokers behind the MPAA and the RIAA? How much of the money made by sales of Batman comics goes to Bill Finger? If I buy a copy of the Hobbit, does the deceased Tolkien get the money? His descendants get the money - people who are passively deriving a benefit from their grandfather's achievements.

Once you apply a classical moral framework to copyright law, the whole structure collapses. If the point of copyright is to benefit the author, why does it persist past the author's death? Why is it possible to sell your copyright in a work?

So how do you answer those questions? You don't. Copyright infringement isn't illegal because it's morally wrong - it's illegal because the law says so. This might seem unjust, but it's what happens when powerful lobbyists use a shallow appeal to morality to justify expanding the scope and length of copyright far past the point of absurdity. Better to think of it as a legal question concerning legal rights and governed by legal principles. That way, at least it makes sense.

When you get down to it, the only time anyone is going to care about copyright infringement is when you're being sued for it. And when you get put in front of a judge, talking about morality isn't going to get you very far. The judge is sitting in front of a big book called The Law, and he wants to find out if what you did was illegal, not if it was wrong.

So I started reading some of the other comments here, arguing that piracy was immoral, and for a minute there I was afraid I'd actually have to put some thought into constructing a coherent counter-argument. You seem to have said just about everything I would want to say. So for that, I thank you ser.

On a related note though, I would say that I am very much a fan of the increasingly popular "choose your price" option for downloading movies and games. In many cases it works out well for the content creators/artists, and tends to cut out all the "middle-man" distribution sources.

I'd also like to add that sometimes the sources for pirating content provide a strictly better service than the actual distributor for a given IP. Take for example, old video games. If you want to get a game from NES or SNES days, unless it was a really popular game that's been remade, the ONLY way to get a copy is by pirating it. For another example, take the fansubs of anime and manga. Generally, less than a week after a chapter/episode is released in Japan, fansub groups will have a fully translated version available for fans, and often their translations are on par or better than those of the content owners, who will release their translated version in about eight months to a year. (If this point has already been made, I apologize for wasting space to repeat it, but I have not read every post here.)

 

[CaptainKoala]

Counterfeiting involves making fake copies of something, while piracy just takes something an distributes exact copes for free in indefinite amounts.

What denotes a digital(or even non-digital) item as a 'fake' copy as opposed to a... 'non-fake' copy?
If you mean that the only distinguishing factor between a 'fake' and a 'real' item is the accuracy of it's replication, then I think I see a bit of a flaw in your assertion.

No, the difference is one is made by the creator, and the counterfeit is made by someone else to be as close to it as possible. This isn't the case in piracy, which is simply taking the original and mass distributing it for free. There is no imitation in piracy like there is in counterfeiting.

 

[QuantumT]

People like to talk about how it's okay because the media companies are stuck in a broken business model, or that it's okay because they're all billionaires anyways. But morally speaking, none of this matters. If it causes them to lose $1 it's just as morally wrong as if it loses them $10,000.

To say that stealing $1 and stealing $10000 aren't different levels of wrong just seems to be blatantly incorrect. To clarify why, lets make an analogy using violence instead of money.

"Flicking someone on the ear is just as morally wrong as shooting them in the head."

Making these two equivalent obviously absurd, and so is your example. Morality is hardly ever black and white.

 

[Compatriot Block]

You know what, I couldn't care less about whether piracy is technically stealing or not. What really, truly irks me is that by downloading for free what I pay for, they are piggybacking on me and everyone else who paid. Essentially, I am paying for their game, because if nobody actually spent money on the games, the developers wouldn't make them.

That is why people should be angry. Pirates are using everyone else to fund their gaming, because if everyone pirates like they do, then the games stop shipping.

Again, that only works if you assume that it's the same people who always pirating everything, and the same people always buying everything, as opposed to most people buying most of their games, and they also feel relaxed about occasionally also pirating some when they are broke, or want to play something that isn't sold anymore, or unsure about a game that doesn't have a demo, etc, usual justifications.

There are very few people who are hardcore pirates, or who are obsessed with ALWAYS following copyright laws.

Edit: Besides, isn't that also true for LEGALLY getting a copy without paying? Like borrowing from a friend? Do you feel angry about people who borrow stuff piggybacking on the industry?

Or people who only buy things after a price cut? They also harm the industry why not paying a full price, aren't thes?

No, I don't, and it's disingenuous to try and use less reasonable examples instead of responding to mine.

It would be absurd to be angry about people who borrow things.

It would be absurd to be angry at people who buy a game at less than full price.

I am not angry about either of those things, and therefore they should not be involved in your argument, unless you were intentionally trying to equate my point with something both less reasonable and easier for you to argue against. Which would be shameful.

Now, as for the rest of your post.

First off, people who are "obsessed" with following copyright laws (within the realm of gaming, as this is where this topic is based; music examples has no relevance to this discussion) are more common than those who have even dabbled in piracy, owing largely to satisfaction with the current system, relative difficulty of piracy on consoles, and yes, morality.

Second, whether or not they pirate every game under the sun or only have only pirated one specific game, the point stands. They received something for free that would not exist were it not for paying customers, ergo, piggybacking.

And please, do not bring in an example that involves a game that is literally impossible to get legitimately. We both know we're talking about games that are available for purchase.

 

[QuantumT]

*snip*

I'm going to attempt to clarify what Entitled was getting at.

He brought up people borrowing games, he was giving a very distinct group of people who are "piggybacking" on the people who buy the game (ie they get to play the game but aren't paying for it).

When you respond with

It would be absurd to be angry about people who borrow things.

It would be absurd to be angry at people who buy a game at less than full price.

That is EXACTLY the point. It IS absurd to get mad at people who borrow things. The problem is that you have yet to qualify how the group of people who pirate the game are any different from the group of people who borrow things. There is a legal difference, but you already said that isn't what you were interested in.

 

[Yopaz]

Voted other because this isn't a black and white issue. There are tons of things that you just can't get your hands on with legal means, such as records that are out of print. Yes, you can buy it used, but that doesn't give the record company any more money than if you had downloaded it

In other cases you get screwed over by copyright/trademark laws. Now this is actually an example of how it hurts both the publisher and the consumer. A few months back the prologue to the book A Memory of light was released. I was planning to buy that instantly, but I couldn't because they didn't have the rights to sell digital content outside America. I tried a lot of sites that had digital content and I really put a lot of effort into finding someone who could publish it. It took months before I was able to legally buy it, but piracy would have granted me the book much sooner. Now I have bought the prologue and the book in both audio format and as a leather bound copy worth almost $300 so it's not just an excuse to pirate something.

The same copyright laws also prevent the book from being translated to different languages since the person who holds the rights to the series is dead. Now this actually hurts the publisher quite a lot. They are missing out on the entire market that don't like to read English books. Which means huge parts of Asia and Europe. The laws need to be modified for both the companies and the consumers.

 

[Strazdas]

Depends on situation. I for oen believe that ALL scientific works should be accessible to every human being. As for entertainment art, i think current copyright laws are very very bad. Main thing is the period. the period was extended to life+90 for "saving mickey" whne in reality it sohuld ahve been shortened. Such things as music and movies should go to public domain after at most 30 years, and with media that changes as fast as games that should be around 15 or even 10 years. you have been making profit from your product for 30 years, you have gotten your bite, now stop rpetending like its a valuable property and go make new things. There are obviuos exceptions, like a long runing series where the ownership of the original concept is important for ability to continue production. but we already got that in our law.
Imagine what that would do to our libraries. And the creators really wount be punished since lets face it how much profit do they earn after the movie is out for 30+ years with exception of it being something like pulp fiction.
So yeah, morally SOME piracy is ok according to my personal opinion.

Then there is also a trial factor, but with the media coverage we got today no demo is necessary. i mean jut start a let's play on youtube and you will have the same thing. However i do understand that there are quite a few people who pirate it and buy it if the content is good. so this highly encourages making good content as that is the only one you get paid for.

That's a nice idea, the only problem with it is that it would be inherently biased in favor of established media, and stun innovation by giving a conservative authority the power to decide what art gets supported.

If we would have had such a system a few decades ago, the government paying artists every time their movie is watched, or novel is borrowed from a library, then Pong and Pac-Man and Donkey Kong wouldn't fallen under that, as practically no one would have recognized them as "culture", or even as media. And then, the industry wouldn't have had it's roots.

There are new art forms being invented even now, and some of them will catch on. While I agree that unrestricted sharing is the way, but it must still have some sort of capitalistic model around it, that allows for surprise growth.

not necessarily true.
We have a blank space tax here (so even if i buy a dvd to write the thing i filmed myself i still pay some singer money because someone may pirate it) even though piracy is not legal here. However the system we have here is the money is shared to artists based on how much they are listened. And while that is sadly done mostly though radio and TV broadcast ratings now, if we update that to based on amount of downloads then the authors would fairly get paid based on how popular their work is. so a new and upcoming author would still get money provided there are people that download it. and if there are none, then very likely he would sell nothing in current system anyway.

 

[Lunar Templar]

I think they should decriminalize it here in the states, not cause it'd give the pirates a free pass but the shit storm. would.be.epic.

sides, most the publishers that ***** about it the most and use it s a scapegoat I don't particularly like, so watching them scramble would be highly amusing.

And since all my best games are MMOs or on consoles not built around the idea of 'connecting to the internet', what ever poorly conceived plan they come up with to combat it wouldn't effect me in any meaningful way

the joys of refusing to 'get with the times'

 

[Entitled]

it's disingenuous to try and use less reasonable examples instead of responding to mine.

It would be absurd to be angry about people who borrow things.

It would be absurd to be angry at people who buy a game at less than full price.

I am not angry about either of those things, and therefore they should not be involved in your argument, unless you were intentionally trying to equate my point with something both less reasonable and easier for you to argue against.

How are any of these examples "less reasonable"? You said that you felt angry about "piggybacking".

I gave verious examples of people getting to play the same games as you, while giving nothing or insufficient payment to the creator. If everyone would be borrowing games/buying used games, etc, the industry would certainly collapse. In other words, these people are financially benefiting from not paying enough to the industry, while also benefiting from the fact that others do, so they get to play all future games.

How is that morally ANY different from piracy?

Or to ask it that way, which is worse? Someone who played 50 games during his life, all of them borrowed from a friend who bought them for himself, and thus the second guy contributed $0 to the industry, or someone who pirated 100 games and eventually bought the 20 best of those, thus contributing $1000 to the industry, and to future game developement?

Which is a worse case of piggybacking? Which is more morally justifieable?

whether or not they pirate every game under the sun or only have only pirated one specific game, the point stands. They received something for free that would not exist were it not for paying customers, ergo, piggybacking.

Piggybacking would, by definition, imply that some people are working less than others. If everyone buys 10% of the games that they play, and that 10% is what is supporting the industry right now, that's not piggybacking, that's a positive externality, where our shared support of the industry means that we can all access all games.

And please, do not bring in an example that involves a game that is literally impossible to get legitimately. We both know we're talking about games that are available for purchase.

I didn't even notice until this part that we are talking about games only, I intended to talk about media in general, you were the one who brought up game examples to begin with.

 

[Signa]

Bravo Escapist, bravo. I've watched a many piracy discussions (and participated in a few ill-fated ones), and this one by far is the most civil I've seen in years.

Also:

I don't think pirates are bad people, but that doesn't mean piracy isn't a morally wrong thing. Do you honestly see nothing wrong with it? Only a few providers are at risk of getting caught, everyone who doesn't pirate does it because they think it's morally right, not because they're afraid of getting punished.

Honestly, you see nothing morally wrong with piracy?

I think it's morally wrong on the same level that jaywalking is morally wrong. As in, not very.

The problem with talking about piracy as a moral question is that it opens up a whole bag of moral quandaries that you don't really need to address. Let's say copyright infringement is morally wrong in the basis that you are deriving the benefit of a creator's work without paying for it. Under that framework, I can think of a number of equally wrong but socially acceptable activities, such as;

- borrowing a book from a friend
- buying a used video game
- accepting a hand-me-down iPhone from a sibling
- reading a comic book or a magazine in the store
- watching a DVD of the Avengers at a friend's house
- listening to music played on your friend's music player
- watching a clip of a comedian's stand-up routine on Youtube

You can keep going. Under the moral framework for copyright infringement, literally any scenario where you obtain the benefit of a work - reading it, watching it, listening to it - without paying money to the artist is morally wrong. That's unworkable. There isn't a single human being in the first world who hasn't done one of those items on the list at some point in their lives. They're all about as malicious as eating the last slice of cake, or telling your girlfriend she doesn't look fat in those jeans.

Add that to the fact that, as I said, if you take a moral view of copyright law it's morally wrong to pay anyone other than the creator. How much of the money made from music and films goes to the creators and how much goes to the lobbyists and industry powerbrokers behind the MPAA and the RIAA? How much of the money made by sales of Batman comics goes to Bill Finger? If I buy a copy of the Hobbit, does the deceased Tolkien get the money? His descendants get the money - people who are passively deriving a benefit from their grandfather's achievements.

Once you apply a classical moral framework to copyright law, the whole structure collapses. If the point of copyright is to benefit the author, why does it persist past the author's death? Why is it possible to sell your copyright in a work?

So how do you answer those questions? You don't. Copyright infringement isn't illegal because it's morally wrong - it's illegal because the law says so. This might seem unjust, but it's what happens when powerful lobbyists use a shallow appeal to morality to justify expanding the scope and length of copyright far past the point of absurdity. Better to think of it as a legal question concerning legal rights and governed by legal principles. That way, at least it makes sense.

When you get down to it, the only time anyone is going to care about copyright infringement is when you're being sued for it. And when you get put in front of a judge, talking about morality isn't going to get you very far. The judge is sitting in front of a big book called The Law, and he wants to find out if what you did was illegal, not if it was wrong.

Quoting you because it bears repeating. As a moral issue, piracy gets really muddied when you bring all related actions into the mix. Though an interesting followup thread would be the morality of having laws surrounding copyright and piracy. It seems rather amoral to make all those other actions illegal because it needlessly treads on personal freedoms, yet in contrast, no one seems to bat an eye at the fact that piracy is illegal. Perhaps it would serve better to be a social faux pas instead of being illegal, and leave the criminalization of the act to the counterfeiters and street venders.

[sub][sub][sub][sub][sub]Also, why is it that anyone invested in this discussion has to spend pages and pages explaining why piracy isn't that bad while everyone else says "piracy equals theft. DONE ARGUING. NOPE NOPE NOPE," like they know all the answers to the universe? [/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

No, the difference is one is made by the creator, and the counterfeit is made by someone else to be as close to it as possible. This isn't the case in piracy, which is simply taking the original and mass distributing it for free. There is no imitation in piracy like there is in counterfeiting.

...I'm assuming there's something that I'm missing here, so just to make sure we have everything clarified:

You do realise, surely, that both the file uploaded by the host of pirated content, and the copy received by those engaging in piracy are both... well, exactly that, a copy. They are not the 'original' at all and by virtue of how the process works never could be.

And, as you already acknowledged, it's not the accuracy of the copy which distinguishes if something is/is not counterfeit, it's the fact that it is unauthorised replication.

So uh... do you agree on these two points? Is piracy therefore not the equivalent(if not direction translation) of counterfeiting content of a digital medium?
((both practices fall outside the legal/technical definition of theft by creating 'new' stock rather than displacing 'original' stock, both involve the unauthorised replication of another entities creation, and both have a tendency to undercut the original's creators by distributing a copy of their product at lower cost. There's certainly a lot in common even if I am ultimately proven mistaken in my assertions))

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Is it morally wrong to check a book out of the library?

Is it morally wrong for you to give a tape of your favorite songs that you recorded off the radio?

Is it morally wrong to copy a TV show with your DVR and skip all of the commercials?

Is it morally wrong to take a car for a test drive?

Is it morally wrong for game companies to drive day 1 sales and not be held responsible for crap games?

Is it morally wrong to read a book that has been mass produced thanks to the wonders of the printed press?

Is it morally wrong to listen to an mP3 that has been copied from your CD to your ipod to another blank CD for the car?

Is it morally wrong to share your toys with the neighbor's kid?


Sorry, current copyright and patent laws are morally wrong, not the actions that people are taking to circumvent them.

 

[tippy2k2]

Not trying to put you in a box at all. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around your perspective. I honestly don't see how temporarily depriving myself of the game while my friend borrows it doesn't also violate your views on someone enjoying someone else's work for free. What if this friend is my roommate and I don't lose access to the game at all?

Same with buying used games. As you said, it's a basic consumer right to do what we want with things we pay for. This would include selling it to Gamestop used, who then sells it to a third party with the original developer not getting any money from their hard work. Legal or not, the end result is the same. Do you have the same outrage at this?

Sorry, that "box" thing was a joke. It's a term used on a radio station here when one DJ attempts to "box" another one by throwing out one related thing and saying "Well if X is OK then Y and Z are OK too!". However, I realize that this wouldn't be clear at all unless you happened to listen to my radio station in Minnesota so that's my bad

And ultimately, you're kind of right; it doesn't really make much sense. The road is different but the destination is the same in borrowing/used sales versus pirating: A developer does not get the cash for the product (personally, it's why I rarely buy used but I'm not going to look down upon people who do). You could make a strong case that I'm being hypocritical in saying that one is OK and the other is not but I just don't see it that way. One is a basic right in any society and the other is not.

*Also note to anyone else in this thread: I have abandoned the thread as usually happens with these types of discussions. My point about used versus piracy has probably been made by now (and someone has probably explained it in a better way) but I have not looked through the thread.

 

[zumbledum]

I know I'm opening myself up to people yelling at me but fuck it, I'm bored and I hate myself enough:

Piracy isn't right. Maybe it's easier for me to get that taking the creation of another sucks for the creator since I come from a graphic design background but it has always just baffled me why people believe that it's OK to take something just because it's not a physical product (which always seems to be the primary argument for why it's not stealing and that makes it OK).

If a Geek Squad guy comes to your house and hooks up your entertainment system, is it OK to not pay him? He just plugged some cords in, you're not getting a physical product out of it.

If the mechanic rotates your tires, is it OK to not pay him? He just untightened and retightened something, you're not getting a physical product out of it.

If a programmer puts together the code to allow a software to run on your PC, is it OK not to pay him? He just coded something, you're not getting a physical product out of it...

I have never heard an argument that has convinced me to think that piracy is OK. If you think you can change that, go ahead and take your best shot but I guarantee I've heard it all before. Just like you've heard my ramblings about why it's wrong before.

Piracy isnt right , im playing devils advocate here.

Your metaphors are wrong, they all make the same mistake in each case you are taking the victims time. Piracy doesn't do that, to take your programmer one and correct it it would read
"If a programmer creates a program for someone else and you use your own time and resources to duplicate it" you now haven't taken anything even time away from the programmer his one possible loss is that of a potential sale

it doesn't make it right but its a much lesser impact crime than the theft you describe. and its a common misconception that piracy is theft, it Legally and factually isn't.

Now while still agreeing that piracy is wrong i also think its unfair that there is no balance in the Law, we have piracy to punish one sides abuse of the system but there is no crime for what the other side does, ie the current state is unfair.
What on earth do i mean? Well we have a monetary based free market economic system, and it came about in the middle ages to facilitate the market economy , where people would take their individual produce/service to market and exchange it for others.
The problem is technology has now progressed and its created unfair loop holes and the Laws have always been altered to benefit the producers and extort the consumers.
Take a great football player now he performs once and thanks to TV that performance is replicated at a cost of nearly zero per copy and sold at full price to millions and millions of pay per view customers allowing them to be allocated more resources in wages than a hospital costs which is pure lunacy.
It could Be argued that Piracy is created here in the excess profits and abuse of the supply side. it is teh fact they are selling something that cost nothing to produce at a high mark that makes piracy "worth it"
Now a world class chef who is no less talented has the unfortunate issue of not having a replicable product and must make each in turn and sell them earning a fair and reasonable wage. which makes his product immune to piracy.

A band may write some songs, then perform them over and over on many stages, but thats ok the creative part is being replicated but the labour is being done, they can then record those songs to media and freely replicate that selling it an infinite number of times, they also have a monopoly on selling their media.

so the problem that is the reverse of piracy is the way that replicable media all the advantage is on the supply side they are free to charge obscene profits (10$ CD's 60$ games etc that all have around a 15 cents production cost)
They also get to enjoy monopoly privileges.

So when there are fair rules to the selling of replicable media ie a reasonable price per unit of data size and varied options of suppliers, ill come out and say the pirates are the bad guys and its all wrong. but right here and now as wrong as piracy its less wrong than whats being done to the law abiding non pirates.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

If people download a pirated game, they are taking and playing without paying

Incorrect, If people download a pirated game, they are making a copy and playing without paying

There is no "taking" involved.

Taking something without paying, taking something that isn't yours, is theft.

And not taking away anything, is not theft.

Semantics.

People are downloading copies of a game without paying.
People are taking copies of a game without paying.

You can call it copyright infringement, but it doesn't mean it isn't also theft.

It doesn't matter if there is an infinite amount of something, if people grab one, people are taking it. People are taking a copy, a copy that they didn't pay for.

It is pure common sense logic.

snip

No. I will only go by the true definition of theft.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you. Period.
I don't care what other definitions are out there with superfluous extras added in, obviously by people that want to make loopholes to explain how they aren't thieves.

Piracy is theft, end of story and I will not comment on this matter again in this thread.

 

[T3hSource]

Go outside of North America and Western Europe and piracy has a whole another meaning...this is all I can contribute to the discussion.

 

[Entitled]

Semantics.

People are downloading copies of a game without paying.
People are taking copies of a game without paying.

The difference between taking something and making something is far from semantics.

By quoting your post, I made a copy, yet you didn't take away the original post from you. If you share a game with your friend and play it with only one of you paying, that doesn't mean that the other one is taking it away from the publisher.

If you do the same thing through the Internet, by making a separate copy for yourself, you still aren't taking away anything.

It doesn't matter if there is an infinite amount of something, if people grab one, people are taking it. People are taking a copy, a copy that they didn't pay for.

Then again, by your logic, if downloading would be "taking", then downloading a 200 years old novel, would also be a form of theft, as you are "taking it away without paying" from the internet.

Or if it is not, that why would he downloading of a 60 years old novel be theft?

snip

Piracy is theft, end of story and I will not comment on this matter again in this thread.[/quote]

The way you make arguments so weak that even a pirate could see through them, and then you are so unwilling to defend them, is a far better demonstration of piracy not being theft, tha anything I could say.

 

[Longstreet]

It's legal where i live, so yep, perfectly fine with it.

You want to know why there is piracy?

- 90% of the products are not worth the price they are sold for. 60 euros for 2 hours of fun, no thank you.
- bad customer service / support for the game. Games that are completely broken but never fixed. Customer service that know fuck all bout their products.
- Tried to buy a CD once, would be able to pick it up 2 days later. Fast forward FIVE weeks, 3 of which i was on vacation, and i still didn't have it.
- These days, especially with movies, the customer is the victim. You have a movie of 1,5 hours. But 6 hours of anti piracy warnings and trailers in front. These are usually unskippable.

And you wonder why people download stuff.

Of course the pirating statistics are a bit misleading themselves, they also count people downloading it as a 'demo' and actually buy the game after that and people who download complete games / just the cracks because their dvd got damaged.


All these companies ***** about people downloading their game or w/e, but they fail to follow this simple rule.

If the consumer feels that the game / movie or whatever he buys is worth more than the money he is paying for it, he will buy it. In this case, in the eyes of the consumer, he would be improving, since he gets more worth for his cash.

Just because you are a AAA company doesn't mean you can JUST float on your brand name, sure it gives you recognition, but you still need to pump out quality.

 

[Morph]

No. I will only go by the true definition of theft.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you. Period.
I don't care what other definitions are out there with superfluous extras added in, obviously by people that want to make loopholes to explain how they aren't thieves.

Piracy is theft, end of story and I will not comment on this matter again in this thread.

Well, to counter your faux-logic with equally pointless faux-logic.

take /tāk/: Verb: Lay hold of (something) with one's hands; reach for and hold.

So in the instance of piracy, nothing is actually 'taken'. And so by your definition of theft, it is not theft.


On to a more reasoned point, your comment reveals a marked lack of understanding (or willful omission) of the more subtle aspects of the situation. What it really comes down to is a philosophical debate over what "ownership" actually is, which affects whether or not something is viewed as stealing. But that's an entirely different conversation, and one that is almost entirely opinion based. So I'm going to avoid going into that with any real depth.