video game piracy: a question

[JoJo]

The "I wouldn't buy it anyway" argument is flawed for one simple reason: People on the internet are notorious liars.

While a few might actually be telling the truth, the vast majority of the people using that excuse would've bought the game if the option to steal it didn't exist. They did before they learned how to get it for free and they would've continued to do so if there hadn't existed an easier way.

And the "Pirates are poor and can't afford games" is the worst of them all. No, they're not. They might be pathetic spoiled children that think they're entitled to everything they want the second they want it but they're NOT poor. If you own a machine that can run these games you are NOT poor.

In the end it's all just pathetic excuses. There is one reason, and one reason only, to not pay for games: You do not want to. Simple as that.

And I'm willing to accept that. I do not expect everyone to share the same code of etchics as me and I don't except everyone to understand that by cheating the game industry we're only making the games we like worse and/or farther between. I respect people's right to make their own choice.

But stop bloody lying to yourself about it. You pirate games because you're spoiled and cheap, not for ANY other reason. And fair game to that! But stop pretending. It's transparent and it's pathetic. Stand by your decision like a bloody man or do something you actually CAN stand by.

Quoted for truth, and for the chance that any pirates who missed it the first time might see this again. I see no reason to respect people who don't respect and support the games industry by buying games but still expect to reap the fruits kept afloat by hard-working consumers like myself.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Except that when the pirate purchased that game he purchased the right to play it for himself. If he then sells that game on or trades it in, he no longer has that game or the right to play it. However if he releases said game as a torrent then he is distributing the right for people to play that game, something he is legally not allowed to do as only the owners of the IP can provide that right.

We understand how piracy works, but you don't understand how Intellectual Property works. See, because videogames are capable of being infinitely produced by the IP owner there has to be a method of policing it like we do physical items. This is where licences come in. When you buy a game you are buying a licence to use that particular copy of the software. What you aren't doing is buying the right to copy and distribute that software.

I never said it wasn't illegal and I know exactly what you are talking about, but still, no one has stolen anything.
What he does, as you said, is distributing the the software illegally, but he never stole it, and the people that downloaded it, didn't steal it either...

And that's why I say people don't understand piracy(which shouldn't be called piracy), as they seem to think people have stolen the software, which they haven't.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Just have to ask, how much Star Trek have you watched? Because food was only a small part of what the replicators made. They made physical goods with them all the time -- everything from clothes, to watches, to parts for the ship. Somebody had to design those things, and the cost in doing so would not have been trivial; the comparison stands.

Oh of course, they ranged from convenient domestic sized models to industrial sized models. But a replicator works in a similar way to transporters, they dematerialise the matter they require based on a pre-programmed pattern. Given that another major feature of the replicator is also reverse-engineering, the major work with replicators would have been a matter of cataloguing item's patterns for quick use. In Voyager Harry programs a hideous Flotter doll for Naomi in minutes and though I imagine designing a new engine would be slightly more complicated, there's no labour costs and it can be done by one man with relative ease.

The comparison doesn't hold up well at all. Other than that I'll concede my second point on the basis of my StarCraft II rage. I did mention the dedicated servers when I brought up cracked servers.

I still can't say that it justifies downloaded a pirated game. It's still getting something for free that you should have to pay for and that doesn't sit right with my conscience. Even a horrible piece of software deserves a penny and a thought for the developer's effort, no matter how small.

By definition the product you purchase is infinitely better in that you actually have the rights to it in all its glory. When you purchase your copy of Battleground 3: Modern Combat 12 you have the exclusive rights to use all of the features you paid for, such as multiplayer components and future patches and updates. If you download B3MC12 you first have to wait for a torrent to arrive, to have the DRM and security stamped out of it, for someone to host cracked servers. You might have to use a crack or workaround to patch the game too.

There are several complications to pirating that sometimes make it less than desireable. Sure there are perfect torrents out there, but they're usually of games that have been out for a month or two.

Many games will actually have a 100% working crack the same day the game comes out and often before you even wake up in the morning. People also dont have to host cracked servers as most cracked games also cracked the multiplayer so you can simply use the same ones as everybody who bought the game legally. I guess the only thing that is worse about a pirated copy is that you generally have to wait an additional four or five hours to patch your copy.

I've yet to see a torrent that's circumvented the whole multiplayer thing though. Hell I bought Battlefield 1942 and I still struggled to log into the bloody multiplayer.

I never said it wasn't illegal and I know exactly what you are talking about, but still, no one has stolen anything.
What he does, as you said, is distributing the the software illegally, but he never stole it, and the people that downloaded it, didn't steal it either...

And that's why I say people don't understand piracy(which shouldn't be called piracy), as they seem to think people have stolen the software, which they haven't.

When it comes to stealing, it depends how your legislation puts it. The Theft Act of 1968 claims this to be the definition of theft:

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.

Now "Property" includes intellectual property:

"Property" includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

And the final statement of the act explains this:

A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other?s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

Which clearly states that even if you have no intention of permenantly relieving someone of their property, which in piracy of IP you do not, that by law it is still considered to the same as if it had been permenantly relieved. And to be quite frank, this law is so outdated it's no wonder it barely covers it, which it does by just a hair.

Because laws are old and need to be updated doesn't mean that theft cannot extend to Intellectual Property.

 

[ElNeroDiablo]

Pre Warning: DON'T CALL ME A DAMN-DIRTY PIRATE IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH MY VIEWPOINT FURTHER DOWN THIS POST. I DO NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGE PROGRAMS AS LONG AS I CAN LEGALLY GET A HOLD OF IT.


Re: Star Trek Replicators - A Replicator uses software to convert matter (such as something basic like Carbon) into energy then using that energy to recreate atom-by-atom (effectively) any data pattern (more software) stored in the data banks (be it a cheeseburger, a Core2Duo CPU or a top hat).
Effectively, once someone has made a physical item and has it scanned and stored as a piece of data, then ANYBODY with access to that piece of data can order it up on their personal Replicator at any time they wish, and if they don't want/like it they can feed it back into the Replicator which converts the matter back into energy for the next item someone may want.

It's part of why the United Federation Of Planets (and other galactic powers such as the Klingon Empire, Romulan Empire and Cardassian Union) no longer use things like Gold, Diamonds, Platinum or even paper currency any more, people buy and are paid in Credits which are effectively electronic chips that are used in lieu of old-school money.
Hell, only the Ferengi use a physical material for currency (Latinum) and that's because it's practically impossible to replicate it due to its nature (normally a liquid stored in measured amounts within pieces/bars of Gold), so even if one could scan and store the molecular make-up of some Latinum, there'd be no way to accurately and safely recreate it along the line.

And even with the abundance of Replicators (and nearly unlimited amount of processable energy from Matter-Antimatter Reactors) people still make a living growing crops or running coffee houses, making fresh/naturally-made items instead of having the Replicator makes something from its database of (probably) trillions (that's <million*million>*<million*million>, not <million*thousand>*thousand) items, which people spent time and effort into making and programming for the system to work.

~~~~

Anyways, now I've got that out of my system, back to the topic on hand.

"Piracy" as blathered on about by corporations and companies when in reference to software is simply Copyright Infringement.
My problem is that software companies (looking at YOU, Microsoft, Blizzard, Sony) try to use the EULA (which is technical legalese mumbo-jumbo to try and strip the consumer of any possible rights and legal retorts they might have, and is actually invalid in many places. At least once you get outside of the US) to bullshit their way though screwing over the customer in a way that if taken to court they can deny about it and make it seem that the consumer is in the wrong there.

When I buy a piece of software, I expect that particular copy to be mine until I sell it on, and that the company who made it keeps the IP of the software to not screw me out of BOTH my money and the software I legally purchased. This is how things worked once upon a time, namely back in the 80's and early-mid 90's.
I should NOT be forced into a "binding contract" (HA!) that I have no knowledge of before I break the shrinkwrap and place the disc in my drive, yet this is exactly what happens with a EULA, be it when you're installing Microsoft Windows or installing City of Heroes.

You want a fun fact? Microsoft try to claim in the EULA that the computer build you install Windows onto can be the ONLY hardware configuration you may install the OS to, if you want to wipe clean the system and sell the disc and key to a friend then you're shit outta luck. Even changing more than a few components of the system once it's built (either due to upgrades or replacing parts due to failure/age) can/will cause Windows to bug out on you.
Basically, Microsoft want to try and "legally" tie down one particular CD key with one particular system, and even try (in their OEM license) to tie the OEM key of Windows you bought to the one piece of hardware (be it a CPU or a chassis fan) you had to buy in order for the retailer to "legally" sell you that copy.

However, under Consumer Laws in various countries (such as Australia) such binding of hardware and software from 2 (or more) different makers isn't legal (Apple can get away with binding a copy of Snow Leopard to a particular MacBook Pro as they are the ones who make the system and OS and put them together, but a Dell Latitude D620 with Microsoft Windows Vista can't have the software bound to the hardware as Dell doesn't make Windows and Microsoft doesn't make the D620), and as such those sections of the EULA are technically illegal to try and enforce.
----
How does this have anything to do with my view of Copyright Infringement?
Simple; The more a bunch of idiots (not always the ones working on the program itself, but more middle and upper management who care about profits first, shareholders second and consumers ninth) tries to screw-over the end-user with legal-sounding crap and crippled software, then the more folks who are the technically-savvy end-users will try to under-screw the end-user by uncrippling the software (first-day cracks) and make their own versions of the software without the "Screw You User!" aspect to it then spread it out online using mainly word-of-mouth to get it spread.

This in turn leads to cracked but otherwise complete versions of software that has some form or another of rather draconian BS (aka: Digital RESTRICTIONS Management) being released without said BS included, which in turn leads to the companies over-reacting (instead of, oh I don't now, maybe listening to their consumers and end-users instead of their greedy idiots) and adding MORE draconian BS and thus continuing the cycle.

Yes the crackers and 'copyright infringers' COULD stop their part of the scenario, but that does NOTHING to stop the companies from enforcing more and more BS then trying to get the courts to agree with them and make it legal for the BS to be used, all the while screwing over the LEGITIMATE CONSUMERS instead of the ones the company is trying to affect with said BS.

~~~~

Hmmmmm.... I think that's all I have to say on this matter. If you made it this far and understand what the hell I said without wanting to throw virtual sticks and stones at me whilst condemning me to a probably non-existent afterlife simply because my viewpoint differs from yours, then maybe we can have a rather reasonable talk.