What exactly is the moral difference between pirating a game and borrowing one if you...

[Sutter Cane]

delete the game after you beat it? I mean the primary argument against piracy is that it deprives the people that created the game of the money they would get from said person actually buying the game. However this same criticism can also be equally applied to a person who borrows a game from a friend. Also if one deletes the game after they finish it, the circumstances are basically indistinguishable from the "borrower's" perspective. In both cases the borrower is experiencing a game that they would normally have to pay for at no cost to themselves, and after they beat it, they no longer have access to the game. I guess it just puzzles me how strong the gut reaction is that being able to lend games to friends is a good thing, while piracy is unambiguously morally/ethically wrong, especially since when you examine them, they are not all that dissimilar .

(Note to mods: I'm not trying to advocate piracy here, but rather pointing out what I consider to be a philosophical contradiction in the way many people seem to view piracy and game lending.)

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I imagine because borrowing a game from a friend is small scale.

You can only lend out as many copies of the game as you actually own, while a game can be pirated a potentially unlimited number of times.

As for the moral implication? Meh, I'd happily borrow a game, but I'd never pirate one, again, it's down to the scale.

 

[WeepingAngels]

When you borrow a game, there is still only one copy between the two of you. While it's borrowed, your friend can't also play it.

Piracy is considered to be theft while borrowing something isn't.

You can moralize bank robbery too, if you try hard enough but that doesn't make it ok.

 

[TehCookie]

Your friend can't play the game while you borrow it, while the people you downloaded from still can. Same way it's illegal/morally wrong to copy a friends game.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

At least the borrowed copy made some money for the game makers.

 

[Sutter Cane]

You're friend can't play the game while you borrow it, while the people you downloaded from still can. Same way it's illegal/morally wrong to copy a friends game.

but is there anything inherently bad about the idea that the friend can still play the game while you're playing through it? I see nothing inherently bad about all that provided the person doing the pirating has the integrity to delete the game off their system after they've beaten it, which of course means it's by no means a defense for all piracy but rather an interesting thought that I had when I was thinking about the way as gamers we view borrowing

 

[TehCookie]

You're friend can't play the game while you borrow it, while the people you downloaded from still can. Same way it's illegal/morally wrong to copy a friends game.

but is there anything inherently bad about the idea that the friend can still play the game while you're playing through it? I see nothing inherently bad about all that provided the person doing the pirating has the integrity to delete the game off their system after they've beaten it, which of course means it's by no means a defense for all piracy but rather an interesting thought that I had when I was thinking about the way as gamers we view borrowing

If you don't find piracy morally wrong of course you wouldn't see it as bad. When you buy a game you buy one copy. Making copies and giving them out is illegal and wrong, why is making a copy for your friend different than making a copy to a guy you don't know?

 

[Zhukov]

There isn't any difference in that both scenarios (borrowing and pirating) mean at least one person is playing a game that they did not personally pay for.

And now you know why developers, publishers and console manufacturers are trying to crack down on used games sales.

 

[shrekfan246]

Your friend can't play the game while you borrow it, while the people you downloaded from still can. Same way it's illegal/morally wrong to copy a friends game.

Sony actually allows PSN games to be downloaded to multiple (I believe two or three, not sure on the exact numbers) machines at a time, and I'm relatively sure they're accessible by any account on said machine while they're installed (though I've only ever used my own account, so I can't vouch for that personally).

OT: On a personal basis, there really isn't much difference. One person downloading something that somebody else bought and uploaded to the internet (assuming the original uploader bought it, which is a bit of a crap-shoot but I'm not going to say it never happens) isn't really different from one person borrowing something that somebody else bought.

But like everyone else has said, it's more about the scale of the matter. When it comes to piracy, it's not going to just be that one person.

It's part of the reason why I never thought Microsoft's "share" system for the Xbox One would be what everyone else assumed it to be; Allowing up to eleven people per game sold the ability to play completely through said game without ever purchasing it themselves, and then the person has the ability to link the game to someone else's account and they could share it with another ten friends? In the grand scheme of things, that's a lot of potential sales that could be lost, because it's a much greater scale than the systems currently in place.

It's really a situation of missing the forest for the trees.

 

[WeepingAngels]

There isn't any difference in that both scenarios (borrowing and pirating) mean at least one person is playing a gam that they did not personally pay for.

And now you know why developers, publishers and console manufacturers are trying to crack down on used games sales.

Where do you get the idea that there should be a requirement to personally pay for what you use? Let's extend that logic to cars, television, Blu Ray Players, game consoles, books, computers, etc...

 

[Zhukov]

There isn't any difference in that both scenarios (borrowing and pirating) mean at least one person is playing a gam that they did not personally pay for.

And now you know why developers, publishers and console manufacturers are trying to crack down on used games sales.

Where do you get the idea that there should be a requirement to personally pay for what you use? Let's extend that logic to cars, television, Blu Ray Players, game consoles, books, computers, etc...

Huh?

"Should"? Where did I say "should"?

I'm not taking a position on this, just explaining it. You're seeing something that isn't there.

 

[senordesol]

When you buy a copy of a game; you own that copy (and only that copy) of that game. You PAID for it, the devs have MADE THEIR MONEY from it, it's now yours. As the legal owner, it is your right to lend or resell YOUR PROPERTY as it pleases you (again, so long as we're talking about one, discrete copy) because, again, money has changed hands (for that copy)-the devs have been paid (for that copy).

Piracy, however, is the creation of infinite copies. Even if the original file was paid for, by distributing additional files with no compensation paid to the developers is IN NO WAY similar to lending. In the above scenario there is still only ONE COPY floating around that has already been paid for. In the piracy scenario there can be THOUSANDS of copies floating around -none of which have been paid for.

See the difference?

 

[WeepingAngels]

There isn't any difference in that both scenarios (borrowing and pirating) mean at least one person is playing a gam that they did not personally pay for.

And now you know why developers, publishers and console manufacturers are trying to crack down on used games sales.

Where do you get the idea that there should be a requirement to personally pay for what you use? Let's extend that logic to cars, television, Blu Ray Players, game consoles, books, computers, etc...

Huh?

"Should"? Where did I say "should"?

I'm not taking a position on this, just explaining it. You're seeing something that isn't there.

I really doubt that publishers view theft, loaning a game and buying a game used as the exact same just based on "every player didn't pay us personally for the game".

 

[Zhukov]

There isn't any difference in that both scenarios (borrowing and pirating) mean at least one person is playing a gam that they did not personally pay for.

And now you know why developers, publishers and console manufacturers are trying to crack down on used games sales.

Where do you get the idea that there should be a requirement to personally pay for what you use? Let's extend that logic to cars, television, Blu Ray Players, game consoles, books, computers, etc...

Huh?

"Should"? Where did I say "should"?

I'm not taking a position on this, just explaining it. You're seeing something that isn't there.

I really doubt that publishers view theft, loaning a game and buying a game used as the exact same just based on "every player didn't pay us personally for the game".

*snrk*

Really?

You must have missed the multiple instances where developers and publishers have said exactly that.

Obviously not everyone in the industry is going to have the exact same view. However, yes, some of them do regard used game sales as lost sales in the same way as piracy. Whether you agree with this is up to you. Like I said, I don't really have a position on this.

 

[WeepingAngels]

There isn't any difference in that both scenarios (borrowing and pirating) mean at least one person is playing a gam that they did not personally pay for.

And now you know why developers, publishers and console manufacturers are trying to crack down on used games sales.

Where do you get the idea that there should be a requirement to personally pay for what you use? Let's extend that logic to cars, television, Blu Ray Players, game consoles, books, computers, etc...

Huh?

"Should"? Where did I say "should"?

I'm not taking a position on this, just explaining it. You're seeing something that isn't there.

I really doubt that publishers view theft, loaning a game and buying a game used as the exact same just based on "every player didn't pay us personally for the game".

*snrk*

Really?

You must have missed the multiple instances where developers and publishers have said exactly that.

Obviously not everyone in the industry is going to have the exact same view. However, yes, some of them do regard used game sales as lost sales in the same way as piracy. Whether you agree with this is up to you. Like I said, I don't really have a position on this.

Well whatever, can I ask why you aren't talking for yourself? You aren't taking a position on this so you just speak for publishers, why?

 

[Zhukov]

*snrk*

Really?

You must have missed the multiple instances where developers and publishers have said exactly that.

Obviously not everyone in the industry is going to have the exact same view. However, yes, some of them do regard used game sales as lost sales in the same way as piracy. Whether you agree with this is up to you. Like I said, I don't really have a position on this.

Well whatever, can I ask why you aren't talking for yourself? You aren't taking a position on this so you just speak for publishers, why?

Why not?

I don't have a position on it myself because I can't really be bothered forming one in regards to something as petty as video game ownership and piracy. I have no stake in the matter nor any influence, so why get all hot and bothered about it?

 

[Genocidicles]

Sort of jumping off the opening post, what's the moral difference between pirating a film or music, and taping it from the tv or radio?

 

[TehCookie]

Your friend can't play the game while you borrow it, while the people you downloaded from still can. Same way it's illegal/morally wrong to copy a friends game.

Sony actually allows PSN games to be downloaded to multiple (I believe two or three, not sure on the exact numbers) machines at a time, and I'm relatively sure they're accessible by any account on said machine while they're installed (though I've only ever used my own account, so I can't vouch for that personally).

OT: On a personal basis, there really isn't much difference. One person downloading something that somebody else bought and uploaded to the internet (assuming the original uploader bought it, which is a bit of a crap-shoot but I'm not going to say it never happens) isn't really different from one person borrowing something that somebody else bought.

But like everyone else has said, it's more about the scale of the matter. When it comes to piracy, it's not going to just be that one person.

It's part of the reason why I never thought Microsoft's "share" system for the Xbox One would be what everyone else assumed it to be; Allowing up to eleven people per game sold the ability to play completely through said game without ever purchasing it themselves, and then the person has the ability to link the game to someone else's account and they could share it with another ten friends? In the grand scheme of things, that's a lot of potential sales that could be lost, because it's a much greater scale than the systems currently in place.

It's really a situation of missing the forest for the trees.

So if you copy and give your game to all your friends is that wrong because of the scale but it's okay for one stranger?

DD is different since you're not buying a game, but a license to play it I think. That's why you can download it anywhere but it's against the TOS to share or lend your account to someone. If you think it's morally wrong to disregard an agreement than that's wrong as well.

Though I'm not familiar with how Xbone's system would have worked or that it had one in place beyond possibility. Even if it sounds good in theory I predicted it would be executed as well as it's kinect and DRM.

 

[DEAD34345]

The difference is that big companies have paid a lot of money in an attempt to convince everyone that pirating games is evil. That's pretty much it, as far as I'm concerned. Some people would also argue that piracy goes against the creator's wishes, and that creators have a moral right to control what happens to copies of something they created (a moral right that gets passed along with the legal right when it is sold to publishers and such, I assume).

In terms of positive and negative effects, they're pretty much identical, but whether or not that makes them morally the same just depends on your personal version of morality.