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.
maybe if games werent so fucking expensive. do you think majority of teenagers have money to throw around? i know i dont
besides, these companies are trying to rip us off the same way we rip them off when we pirate
You have no clue how much money those companies actually make in profit on each disk do you? It's around $5. They aren't cheating you, they are charging a price that allows them to make a profit, which is the only thing that can justify even entering the market of video games.
Disclaimer: none of this was meant to be confrontational, simply informative.
It was from an old issue of game informer, I'm looking for it online but can't seem to find any information regarding where the money goes from each disc sold. I find it to be pretty common knowledge though. After all, consider all the places the money has to be split between. Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft(they all take a large portion than you would think) - The expenses of running the building - Debt acquired from the game development(there is almost always a good amount of this) - and then the actual profit. I wasn't even able to remember all of the places it goes and it is already easy to see how they could only be making $5 in profit.
Just remember, they aren't cheating you, they are charging the price they have too.
Gilbert Munch said:
No, not at all, and perhaps that wasn't the best wording.
I simply meant peple who say 'piracy is wrong' without putting any real thought behind why they think that that is so. You haven't done this, and I respect your point.
When I said there were no reprocussions, I was talking about the punishment-y aspect of it. They aren't going to come round and smash me to pieces because I've done it, so why shouldn't I do it?
I hope you realise with what I say I'm taking some kind of artistic licence... when I say it, this isn't what I actually feel, it's more like a question that challenges people.
Some 'torrent'-ers may feel like that (I don't do torrents, that's getting slightly more illegal) but I'm just using it as a challenging question. I hope you've seen the way that this has all been written.
Finally, I have never used the 'definition of theft' argument. I have fully accepted that what I have done can be construed as 'theft'.
Oh, and 'Sorry but are you stupid'? I hope not, and I don't think insults are a great way to start an argument. Sorry, but those are just one person's opinions.
Your argument is there is no one to stop me, so if I profit from it I should do it. Do you steal from your dad's wallet while he sleeps? Do you auction off your parents stuff when they don't use them much? Do you "borrow" you parents credit card for small purchases, because they wouldn't bother finding out where that 10$ went? Do you take the games that your friends never play? Do you take candy from a baby simply because a baby cant stop you?
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.
Your argument is there is no one to stop me, so if I profit from it I should do it. Do you steal from your dad's wallet while he sleeps? Do you auction off your parents stuff when they don't use them much? Do you "borrow" you parents credit card for small purchases, because they wouldn't bother finding out where that 10$ went? Do you take the games that your friends never play? Do you take candy from a baby simply because a baby cant stop you?
Strawman argument - presenting pirates as being wholly morally corrupt.
Tell me then - if we are arguing that piracy is immoral, then surely it is equally immoral for these companies to attempt to avoid paying taxes, no? Since they are, in essence, trying to not pay for a service provided by the state, surely, therefore, Games Developers and Publishers are equally guilty.
Let's be frank here - everyone cheats the system, so much so that cheating the system is part of the same system. It's not going to crush anything, merely change it.
Strawman argument - presenting pirates as being wholly morally corrupt.
Tell me then - if we are arguing that piracy is immoral, then surely it is equally immoral for these companies to attempt to avoid paying taxes, no? Since they are, in essence, trying to not pay for a service provided by the state, surely, therefore, Games Developers and Publishers are equally guilty.
Let's be frank here - everyone cheats the system, so much so that cheating the system is part of the same system. It's not going to crush anything, merely change it.
Strawman argument means I misrepresent your position, and then attack the falsified position. Your position was that if there is no consequence to an action in which you benefit you should do it. Taking candy from a child has no consequence, as the child cannot do anything to you, and you benefit by gaining candy.
Now you're saying that everyone else does it so it's morally acceptable. That's the equivalent of justifying murder because genocide happens. Also, the difference between taxes and piracy is that in taxes there are specific rules you are allowed to follow in order to minimize the amount of money you spend. The IRS still receives money, but they agree to follow the rules that they created and collect only the amount the rules say they can. In piracy the developer receives nothing, and the pirate enjoys the exploitation of the hard work of others.
Ok, if everyone cheats the government, and no one pays taxes, what would happen? Change of course. But not the super happy fun times change. You would lose medicare and education, crime would skyrocket, people would begin dying from a lack of water, food or hygiene. In short anarchy. If everyone cheats the developers, what happens? Developers shut down, no music, movies, TV shows, or games for anyone. Ie, a complete shutdown of innovation. If you were allowed to take car designs and build the cars to sell them? Auto industry shuts down. Doesn't matter who's ideas you steal, when you steal you cripple the industry.
Hey, whatever you gotta tell yourself. You could always, you know, get a better job to subsidize your expensive habits. Or get better at budgeting the money you have. Don't claim that piracy is your only logical option...you're just greedy and want more stuff for less money.
The thing is, it's impossible to justify buying games once you have the means to get them for free. Try this: get a game for your birthday, then save up to buy it again. It's quite hard to do.
Your logic is flawed as getting 2 of something is not the same as getting a fake one and a real one.
More to the point, for certain items I prefer to own the actual item instead of a copy. If I don't think the game is that worthwhile I would rent it, burn it, play it, and then destroy the copy (don't need evidence of my misdoing lying about).
Piracy is a complex thing. While it is true that the company wouldn't make money off of you if you burn a game instead of buying it because you don't like it enough, the people that copy games and sell them are hurting the industry.
As for the music industry, I wholly approve of downloading mp3s for personal use. I do believe in supporting the music industry but not the way that it is run. I don't want to buy a whole album for X amount of money just to get a song. Now I don't have any objection to buying individual songs through iTunes or another digital sales site, but I would want the uncompressed media file and not some mp3.
And just to note: video games have gotten a lot cheaper over the past twenty years. By this I mean that price of games (not consoles) has stayed the same while the cost of living has gone up drastically.
I buy the game if the company deserves it. Frankly I hate paying companies that churn out crap to produce more crap and by process of natural selection the ones to survive are good companies.
We should learn from past mistakes and avoid a second videogame crash.
I buy the game if the company deserves it. Frankly I hate paying companies that churn out crap to produce more crap and by process of natural selection the ones to survive are good companies.
We should learn from past mistakes and avoid a second videogame crash.
Ok, so if the company churns out crap, why pirate their games? Piracy enforces a natural selection against good games, as only good games will be pirated, essentially encouraging bad game design. Although since bad games won't sell either, what you end up with is no games. So in the end piracy encourages every dev to quit developing games.
I buy the game if the company deserves it. Frankly I hate paying companies that churn out crap to produce more crap and by process of natural selection the ones to survive are good companies.
We should learn from past mistakes and avoid a second videogame crash.
Ok, so if the company churns out crap, why pirate their games? Piracy enforces a natural selection against good games, as only good games will be pirated, essentially encouraging bad game design. Although since bad games won't sell either, what you end up with is no games. So in the end piracy encourages every dev to quit developing games.
I don't pirate good games. That's not to say you're not in the wrong as I've seen plenty of good companies go defunct because their games weren't popular or sold enough such as Sogna, the producer of the Viper series, Almanac of the legendary EVO: Search for Eden and even Bullfrog of Populous and Dungeon Keeper fame.
What I'm trying to say is, if people who can afford the games but pirate them instead are not just doing it out of selfishness but are subconsciously giving a message to the developers as to make their games suck less.
I don't pirate good games. That's not to say you're not in the wrong as I've seen plenty of good companies go defunct because their games weren't popular or sold enough such as Sogna, the producer of the Viper series, Almanac of the legendary EVO: Search for Eden and even Bullfrog of Populous and Dungeon Keeper fame.
That really doesn't put me in the wrong. Piracy only plagues the good developers. Bad developers don't have to deal with piracy, they deal with the fact that their games are so bad, no one buys them. Good developers go out because they get plagued by piracy and bad marketing. Still waiting on DK3 BTW.
Mordwyl said:
What I'm trying to say is, if people who can afford the games but pirate them instead are not just doing it out of selfishness but are subconsciously giving a message to the developers as to make their games suck less.
What you're saying is that people pirate because they don't think the price to quality ratio is good enough? You're saying that the person should be able to dictate how much the company sells their games for, or how good a game has to be to sell for that price, and if the company doesn't listen they have a right to play it for free.
The problem with piracy is the terminology. Piracy sounds like a bad thing - pillaging, taking things from others. When you download copyrighted content, you haven't taken anything from anyone. The choice to support or not support that content is still in your hands. I have somewhat less of a problem when piracy is solely referred to as the act of ripping and sharing a file from a hard-copy, but it is still a very powerful/misleading word to use, since nothing is being taken away. In many ways, this thing called "piracy" can be taken advantage of by the very people who claim it is hurting them.
My real problem with piracy is that there is no evidence that it is hurting any industry, and there is zero corellation between how much something is pirated and the downturn of any market. Even in the cases where piracy has risen, and media companies have taken a hit (the only one where that is true is one branch of the music industry - cd sales) and there is no correlation between the two things. For example, you can't say that piracy is hurting the music industry without taking into account youtube, internet radio, itunes, cd-ripping. It's new technology that is hurting CD sales - and that isn't a bad thing. The music industry just needs to come up with ways to make money from their music, which is true when there is any new technology.
This isn't a justification for piracy because piracy doesn't need a justification. The entire terminology and mindset around it needs to be revised. It's used as a hot-topic for media corporations to lay the blame on others, simply because some of them can't figure out how to adapt business models for new markets and new technology.
As far as gaming goes, some of the most pirated games are also some of the most popular - and there is neither proof that the people who downloaded the games didn't ultimately buy the game, weren't going to buy it in the first place, or didn't have any money to buy it.
With all that, I still think it's very important to support the things you love. But most people do that anyway - download an album, become a huge fan, go to a concert, buy a t-shirt, etc. That's way more common than you'd think.
The problem with piracy is the terminology. Piracy sounds like a bad thing - pillaging, taking things from others. When you download copyrighted content, you haven't taken anything from anyone. The choice to support or not support that content is still in your hands. I have somewhat less of a problem when piracy is solely referred to as the act of ripping and sharing a file from a hard-copy, but it is still a very powerful/misleading word to use, since nothing is being taken away. In many ways, this thing called "piracy" can be taken advantage of by the very people who claim it is hurting them.
My real problem with piracy is that there is no evidence that it is hurting any industry, and there is zero corellation between how much something is pirated and the downturn of any market. Even in the cases where piracy has risen, and media companies have taken a hit (the only one where that is true is one branch of the music industry - cd sales) and there is no correlation between the two things. For example, you can't say that piracy is hurting the music industry without taking into account youtube, internet radio, itunes, cd-ripping. It's new technology that is hurting CD sales - and that isn't a bad thing. The music industry just needs to come up with ways to make money from their music, which is true when there is any new technology.
So intellectual creators (Musicians, film crews, game studios) should accommodate for people who intent to take their work without compensation.
CapnJack said:
This isn't a justification for piracy because piracy doesn't need a justification. The entire terminology and mindset around it needs to be revised. It's used as a hot-topic for media corporations to lay the blame on others, simply because some of them can't figure out how to adapt business models for new markets and new technology.
Look, it doesn't matter what the company does with their property. If they make music and only sell it to people who belong to an exclusive club, piracy is still theft. The right to use the data you download is given upon purchase. You do not have ownership of the data itself, because if you did you could simply hand it to everyone in the world, ensuring that the creator only receives 5$ for 10000 hours of work.
CapnJack said:
As far as gaming goes, some of the most pirated games are also some of the most popular - and there is neither proof that the people who downloaded the games didn't ultimately buy the game, weren't going to buy it in the first place, or didn't have any money to buy it.
If they didn't buy the game, they didn't own the right to play it. They stole the right to play it. Money is work in physical form. It is given in compensation for work. Why would the work they do be worth 0$ why your job pays you a healthy sum. If you don't have the money to buy it, then you're still saying the effort they put in is valueless, and yet you want it, so the product has to have some value. And if you weren't planning to buy it in the first place then again, you've claimed their work as valueless why giving value to the game.
CapnJack said:
With all that, I still think it's very important to support the things you love. But most people do that anyway - download an album, become a huge fan, go to a concert, buy a t-shirt, etc. That's way more common than you'd think.
If the musician found that giving away his music and having more people in concerts would make more money, he'd do it. But that's his decision, not yours.
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.
))
