I'm not a fan of pirating, but if there's no other way to obtain a game (i.e: extremely old and no longer sold), i'll do it.
Poll: Pirating games. Discuss.
- Thread starter Everin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There are some rather interesting gray areas when it comes to piracy, abandonware, and emulation.
How much is covered under then last two? How about just abandonware?
Is it illegal to get abandonware just so you can get it to run because you don't have a 5"1/4 drive on my laptop?
How much is covered under then last two? How about just abandonware?
Is it illegal to get abandonware just so you can get it to run because you don't have a 5"1/4 drive on my laptop?
I've pirated a game once, Halo 1, and my reason is fair.
I bought the game on PC from Game, and when I got home the disk was scratched, I brought it back to the store, they REFUSED to exchange it, claiming "All games are checked for scratches before giving to customer... also the receipt doesn't match up with the store" even though it was the same employee that sold me it only an hour before.
So since I had all ready paid and management wouldn't do anything about it I feel downloading a copy was justified, the company still got their cut in the end. After writing to head office and kicking up enough stink I eventually got offered another game of my choice for free a month later.
I bought the game on PC from Game, and when I got home the disk was scratched, I brought it back to the store, they REFUSED to exchange it, claiming "All games are checked for scratches before giving to customer... also the receipt doesn't match up with the store" even though it was the same employee that sold me it only an hour before.
So since I had all ready paid and management wouldn't do anything about it I feel downloading a copy was justified, the company still got their cut in the end. After writing to head office and kicking up enough stink I eventually got offered another game of my choice for free a month later.
Steam Sales changed that for me.Blablahb said:
It's actually gotten really bad for me, I've bought so many games that... I HAVEN'T PLAYED YET IN OVER A YEAR!
Seriously, I can't get through them all there are so many, the licence is uninstalled on my games list. You don't even want to know how much I spent, yes, it averaged only £4 ($6) per game, but 270 games!
The trap is you don't want to move onto the next game until you have completed the last.
But as to piracy of TV shows... £1.89 per episode of Futurama on itunes! That's $3 for an episode that came out 9 years ago! I know that Americans can get that shit free and legal streaming with ads from company websites! That is extortion I will not tolerate yet they have a monopoly in this market, no where else to option the show digitally and legally.
Futurama is great, but I am not waiting 9 years to pay $3 per episode for it.
Jesus was a pirate.
He multiplied the fish and bread he got in order to feed 5000 and the people that sell those items lost a lot in potential income. So by current defenitions Jesus commited theft by making many more fish and bread loaves from originally obtained food products instead of buying more.
Imagine... those poor business owners and their lost "potential sales" because of fish and bread copying
And don't forget! Cassette recording was killing the music industry too!
.
He multiplied the fish and bread he got in order to feed 5000 and the people that sell those items lost a lot in potential income. So by current defenitions Jesus commited theft by making many more fish and bread loaves from originally obtained food products instead of buying more.
Imagine... those poor business owners and their lost "potential sales" because of fish and bread copying
And don't forget! Cassette recording was killing the music industry too!
.
Haha! Classic!Nurb said:Jesus was a pirate.
He multiplied the fish and bread he got in order to feed 5000 and the people that sell those items lost a lot in potential income. So by current defenitions Jesus commited theft by making many more fish and bread loaves from originally obtained food products instead of buying more.
Imagine... those poor business owners and their lost "potential sales" because of fish and bread copying
I just hate when people more or less compare it to murder. Piracy barely effects the game industry. Some games have world records for making money and sales.
Publishers are stealing far more off developers than piracy is. Yet we get punished with crappy products because most publishers/developers just don't care about anything but money.
Publishers are stealing far more off developers than piracy is. Yet we get punished with crappy products because most publishers/developers just don't care about anything but money.
I may have done it once.
My sister bought me starcraft 2 for Christmas. The key code did not work and Blizzard were no help, telling me I had to provide a receipt, which I did not have.
Anyhoo, after several emails back and forth, they said there was nothing more they could do for me.
So, I looked into other ways for a fix. Which I got.
In general though, I think it is stealing, unless something like what happened to me comes up.
My sister bought me starcraft 2 for Christmas. The key code did not work and Blizzard were no help, telling me I had to provide a receipt, which I did not have.
Anyhoo, after several emails back and forth, they said there was nothing more they could do for me.
So, I looked into other ways for a fix. Which I got.
In general though, I think it is stealing, unless something like what happened to me comes up.
I think that pirating games that you can just get at any game shop is really pointless but I think it is okay to pirate games that you cant get anywhere (Eg. Japan's Visual novel), since we cannot get any one of them here in Australia.
Even if you do illegally download games, I don't see how you can think it isn't a dick thing to do.
It's wrong if there's an actual market position to hurt for the product, i.e. if it's (still) commercially available in a form usable to you.
If some South African dude downloads an independent French film that'll never see release outside of Europe - nor ever be officially translated into Africaan - then there's very little reason that the law should extend to such a case, as its true purpose is not to prevent distribution, but to secure that creators and publishers get a reasonable rate of return from the markets they have and will release on.
That it usually does extend to such cases bear witness to the very heavy lobbyism that have shaped current copyright law (looking at you, America), and its lack of proportions, clearly defined boundaries, and proper balance between consumer and industry rights; Which is ironically one of the primary factors undermining respect - and hence efficiency - for it in the general population.
Breaking the law is of course never a good and proper thing to do, and should be avoided. But nor is accepting its current - simultaneously too oppressive and too inefficient - state as immutable and unchangeable a good and proper thing either. A better balance must eventually be struck, if the industry is to have any chance to gather the societal and normative respect around the law, without which it simply cannot function to any significant degree in a free society.
If some South African dude downloads an independent French film that'll never see release outside of Europe - nor ever be officially translated into Africaan - then there's very little reason that the law should extend to such a case, as its true purpose is not to prevent distribution, but to secure that creators and publishers get a reasonable rate of return from the markets they have and will release on.
That it usually does extend to such cases bear witness to the very heavy lobbyism that have shaped current copyright law (looking at you, America), and its lack of proportions, clearly defined boundaries, and proper balance between consumer and industry rights; Which is ironically one of the primary factors undermining respect - and hence efficiency - for it in the general population.
Breaking the law is of course never a good and proper thing to do, and should be avoided. But nor is accepting its current - simultaneously too oppressive and too inefficient - state as immutable and unchangeable a good and proper thing either. A better balance must eventually be struck, if the industry is to have any chance to gather the societal and normative respect around the law, without which it simply cannot function to any significant degree in a free society.
Somehow I can't get admiral Ackbar out of my mind hereEverin said:I feel that the title says it all, but maybe I'll expand a little. Do you think it's right for the gamers to download games for free, bypassing the shops and online stores, therefore denying the producers and other creators of the games no money for their art? And why do you think it's right or wrong?
Oh, and I'm not sure if this has been done before but views may change, times may affect views. Don't immediately point out that this thread has been done before if it has, where's the fun in that?
Before this gets locked/deleted I hope you take the time to check this, regardless of your opinion:
http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/cint_release
(not just the funny clip, download the whole thing)
I've done so many debate on this topic already. I feel like trying to get some to answer me, instead of me answering them... excuse me, but for this I need a large net.
Vault101 said:
Llil said:
Everin said:
dududf said:
Frehls said:
Blablahb said:
poiumty said:
b3nn3tt said:
Treblaine said:
GiantRaven said:
creationis apostate said:
Sober Thal said:
Jtar said:
Xzi said:
Imperator_DK said:
Digitalisation ultimately reduces everything to mere ideas. Does every copy absolutely needs to be paid for ? Some of you said it, if the idea is otherwise unavailable and would be fading into obscurity then copying it is not even a "grey area" but entirely justified. It's "grey" because of the law, but a law that makes everyone using a computer a criminal by default is insane and deserves no respect.
Is an artist really so justified to expect total control on what becomes of his ideas ? Is that expectation at all realistic ? Well no, controlling ideas is an illusion, and a distasteful one.
Why "piracy" is "wrong" boils down to it being possibly "unjust enrichment" of a part of the public:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unjust_enrichment
In a (probably vain) attempt to further that debate I have considered this, where the defendant is the Pirate and the claimant the Copyright Holder:
1. Was the defendant enriched?
Yes.
2. Was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant?
No, or not provable.
3. Was the enrichment unjust?
Failure to profit is not the responsibility of the defendant.
4. Does the defendant have a defense?
Yes, freedom of information and fair use.
5. What remedies are available to the claimant?
On screen advertising for streamed medias, being popular among the clients and using that popularity for merchandising are two examples proven to work.
--One more aspect to this, can the law do anything about it ? Yes and no, it's clear illegal copying will never be stopped and only the most unlucky will be made to pay dearly.
The thing about piracy is although it is wrong copyright law cannot take the moral high ground as the corporate intellectual ownership has quite frankly gotten out of control.
Things like how the Happy Birthday song being "owned" by The Time-Warner Corporation in 1998 a whole 100 years after the song was first sung, they now charge TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for anyone to use the song in a public performance. Ten grand for a song everyone sings every year at birthdays.
I cannot respect a law that is THAT detached from reality.
All intellectual property laws have become fundamentally unjust now, especially when Apple just this month in 2011 they got a patent for "The process of touching a screen with fingers to cause the software to react"
WHAT! In 2011 with the market flooded with devices that does that Apple is granted a patent to use a touchscreen.
They didn't even invent the touchscreen, they are merely staking claim to the IDEA OF USING IT FOR IT'S SOLE PURPOSE! What the hell could you use a touchscreen for other than changing the software. I mean the prior art before their application, the state of the current market. This utterly stifles innovation!
Now every time you make a documentary you have to blur out everyone's T-shirt and cap because although EVERYTHING is covered in brands, you can't "copy" them by just filming a documentary.
Sure, it may be the law, but intellectual property law is utterly detached from reality, no one really thinks violating copyright is wrong.
Things like how the Happy Birthday song being "owned" by The Time-Warner Corporation in 1998 a whole 100 years after the song was first sung, they now charge TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for anyone to use the song in a public performance. Ten grand for a song everyone sings every year at birthdays.
I cannot respect a law that is THAT detached from reality.
All intellectual property laws have become fundamentally unjust now, especially when Apple just this month in 2011 they got a patent for "The process of touching a screen with fingers to cause the software to react"
WHAT! In 2011 with the market flooded with devices that does that Apple is granted a patent to use a touchscreen.
They didn't even invent the touchscreen, they are merely staking claim to the IDEA OF USING IT FOR IT'S SOLE PURPOSE! What the hell could you use a touchscreen for other than changing the software. I mean the prior art before their application, the state of the current market. This utterly stifles innovation!
Now every time you make a documentary you have to blur out everyone's T-shirt and cap because although EVERYTHING is covered in brands, you can't "copy" them by just filming a documentary.
Sure, it may be the law, but intellectual property law is utterly detached from reality, no one really thinks violating copyright is wrong.
I'll keep my comment on the subject brief. I do not engage in piracy of any media and only rarely see an argument supporting the practice that holds up under even cursory inspection. Those rare cases generally deal with games that are simply impossible to acquire through normal means (i.e. the game license holder has gone out of business in such a way as to make a re-release impossible on a old title, or to put it another way, the argument used to support downloadings ROMs of obscure old titles. This argument I accept so long as the person instantly purchases the product should the opportunity present itself, or if they already own a copy of the game. The other case I tend to accept is if someone legally owns a copy of a game but does not possess all of the media).