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

[Entitled]

The main difference is legality.

Publishers are legally allowed to stop you from writing a new copy of their content (under certain circumstances, though not including things like TV show recordings) because copyright law allows them to do it, but they are not allowed to stop you from personally giving people around you access (under certain circumstances, but they youd still ban anything that counts as a public performance), because copyright law limits them from doing it.

People are going to justify whatever is legal as morally acceptable, and whatever is illegal as unacceptable.

If copyright law would declare game borrowing to be a form of "piracy", then as far as most people are concerned it would be theft, and if copyright wouldn't be written to extend to online file-sharing, then it would be just that, sharing.

Unlike the possession of physical property, IP is not a thing that exists in nature by it's own right, it is defined by whatever the law declares it to be, and it's lines are drawn by wherever the law chooses to draw them.

 

[lacktheknack]

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

It's because you've spawned a copy out of the ether, meaning that you've circumnavigated a pretty standard downside to borrowing.

You're removing all incentive to buy beyond simple ethics.

At any rate, by pirating and deleting, you've gone and taken an experience that had a price attached, and yanked a free one-of-a-kind copy out of nothingness, and have thus broken a copyright law. Instead of borrowing a book from a library, you've photocopied it. Regardless of whether you destroy it after, you're still legally responsible for that, because such a system is far too open to abuse, as you can easily see just by taking a casual glance around the internet.

 

[Dragonbums]

Because with borrowing a game (unless someone pirated that copy too) the developer at least is guaranteed that ONE person bought the game full price.
I'm not exactly sure how deleting save files is somehow on the same moral level as pirating the game. I mean, if the original owner did it...wouldn't that also be considered pirating?

Both are on different planes.
With pirating nobody- not the brick and mortar retailers nor the publishers/developers benefit from the system. At least with buying a game used you guarantee that someone in the dev side got their money.

 

[Entitled]

It's because you've spawned a copy out of the ether, meaning that you've circumnavigated a pretty standard downside to borrowing.

You're removing all incentive to buy beyond simple ethics.

But since piracy is already a thing that exists, and easily available, there was no incentive to buy in the first place, "beyond simple ethics".

If you borrow a game, play it for five hours before having to give it back, and want more, you are entirely able to get all the rest for free, through piracy. If you choose not to, and buy it instead, you are only motivated by ethics.

So how is that different from someone who pirates a game first, decides to like it, and buy it later being motivated by ethics?

 

[Flatfrog]

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?

My (entirely legally wrong) opinion is that once a movie is on the TV, it's fair game. If I could have watched it for free within my existing TV package, then I can watch the fricking thing any time. If I didn't have time to watch it then, then I can tape it; and if I forget to tape it, frankly I don't see any problem with torrenting it (although I wouldn't actually do that because torrenting takes far too long and I never want to watch a movie that badly)

How's this for a question - is it morally wrong to skip the ads which paid for the movies?

Music is different, because in general you listen to music repeatedly, whereas most movies you'll only watch once or twice. Still, if you happen to tape a song off the radio, I don't think there's really anything morally wrong with that - the argument in favour is similar to the argument in favour of most piracy, in that it makes you more likely to get into the music of that band and buy more of it. (Again, though, I don't listen to the radio and certainly wouldn't bother to tape music off it, that's incredibly old-school now I have Spotify)

 

[spartan231490]

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.)

You're forgetting two very important differences. In the borrow situation, the publishers received a cut for that game, this is not the case in the piracy situation. Further, in the borrow situation, while you play your friend cannot. Therefore there is one copy of the game being paid for and one copy being played. This is not the case with piracy. It's the same thing with a used game, it's morally right because that game was sold so that one person at a time could play it, borrowing and used sales and even rentals all follow this same moral distinction of one copy paid for and one copy being played at a time. In piracy it's different, there are very few if any copies being paid for and a great many copies being played.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's because you've spawned a copy out of the ether, meaning that you've circumnavigated a pretty standard downside to borrowing.

You're removing all incentive to buy beyond simple ethics.

But since piracy is already a thing that exists, and easily available, there was no incentive to buy in the first place, "beyond simple ethics".

If you borrow a game, play it for five hours before having to give it back, and want more, you are entirely able to get all the rest for free, through piracy. If you choose not to, and buy it instead, you are only motivated by ethics.

So how is that different from someone who pirates a game first, decides to like it, and buy it later being motivated by ethics?

I see what you're getting at. But there's no requirement to destroy your pirated copy and no restrictions if you don't, which, as I said before, leaves the system positively ripe for abuse.

At least borrowing puts restrictions on your experience, which is more than can be said for piracy.

 

[Cecilo]

Except for the better part of 1990s to 2006 PC Gaming COULD be played even after letting your friend borrow it, No CD patches, CD key generators and the internet allowed you to lend your copy to friends and still allow you to play it while they had it.

I mean, even now I could, you just copy the files from the steam, origin, impulse directories and give that copy to a friend, let him find his own no-cd patch and tada.

Note, I do not endorse piracy, I have not pirated in a long long time, not since I started making my own money.

 

[Entitled]

I see what you're getting at. But there's no requirement to destroy your pirated copy and no restrictions if you don't, which, as I said before, leaves the system positively ripe for abuse.

At least borrowing puts restrictions on your experience, which is more than can be said for piracy.

What I'm getting at, is that with borrowing, you are still only placing the restrictions yourself, on yourself.

It seems to me, that this entire issue is conceptual: you talk about piracy as a "system" that is ripe for abuse, but you can only say that if you consider the legal definition of piracy the most important threshold, and divide up the possibilities behind it, to be an entirely separate bundle of options from the ones on this side of it.

I'm not saying that it doesn't work, a "don't end up as a criminal" rule of thumb might work on those who fear the law, but it still relies on them choosing not to do certain things that they could easily do, while at the same time, for people who don't fear the law, or understand it's underlying purpose more clearly, a "don't end up as a freeloader" rule of thumb would be a lot more morally compelling.

 

[T3hSource]

I just love how companies in the west have ingrained in their societies that pirating is 'morally wrong'.

Is it 'bad'? Yes, it's bad for the producer.

 

[hermes]

*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?

But you do have a position.

By saying "There isn't any difference...", you have the position that borrowing and pirating is the same thing. In fact, all your following comments seems to support the idea that you have, indeed, formed an opinion about it.

OT: Its not the same thing because on the borrowing scenario, you can only borrow your game once at the time. You can't give your game to several friends and you can't use it while your friend has it. In terms of units, there is only one copy of the game being passed between people. Piracy copies the game for other people (potentially more than just your friends) to use it. Its not the same unit and, no matter how many people you give the game to, doesn't affect your or their experience at all. Also, given that one is a physical unit while the other one is a digital file, its assumed the damage of one is a lot smaller than the other, since your circle of physical contacts is a lot smaller than your online one.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

The issue is one of ownership. It's not about the guy who chose to borrow the game, it's about your right to do with your property as you wish. Which includes borrowing.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Piracy is piracy, not theft. New and different meaning.

It depends on the definition of theft. The definition of theft I have always used and have learned from school and from law enforcement during school convocations and career day type stuff many years ago, is that theft is taking a item/physical or non-physical without paying for it.

I couldn't care less on how people think it is different when infinite copies are involved, it all comes down to if the person paid the creators to play the game.

 

[JazzJack2]

The hilarious thing is that many companies are, now being done with convincing people piracy is the big bad bogey man killing the industry (and not their greed and stupidity or the drivel they put out as 'games') moving to say used games and borrowing games is just as evil.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

It is impossible to have a mature adult discussion about piracy on a forum that censors speech about the subject.

Morally there is no difference between the two acts.

 

[crazyarms33]

So how is that different from someone who pirates a game first, decides to like it, and buy it later being motivated by ethics?

Two things.
1) You either like something or you don't. Or at least I do. It's not like I play a game and decide "Wow! I choose to really like that" or play a different game and say "Wow. I choose not to like that." To me whether or not you like something is intrinsic to the experience of the game itself.

2.) I have many friends who have downloaded games and loved them. Out of all of them, how many have gone back and purchased the same game? Zero. None. Not a one. To assume that people will pay for something they already have when they pirated/stole it just because they liked it seems a bit naive to me. Now I can't speak for everyone but I brought it up with one of my friends and they said, "Why? I already have the game. Not like I need two copies." Assuming this is an accurate representation of half(why half? BECAUSE REASONS) the pirate gamer's attitudes, then it becomes a fairly substantial issue.

OT: You can't standardize morals or ethics. What I find abhorrent (stealing/pirating/lying/cheating etc.) may not be true for everyone else. If you are going to ask a moral question, that is essentially asking yourself the question on how do YOU feel about it and then looking for vindication from other people's responses based on how you already feel about it. For example taking this question, you're automatically going to look for people who agree with you and give more credit to their arguments because you have a bias that slants that way, and people who disagree with you aren't going to be as persuasive because you already think that they're wrong. Make sense? Your ethics are based on your actions and experiences and as such you reinforce them accordingly.

 

[Entitled]

1) You either like something or you don't. Or at least I do. It's not like I play a game and decide "Wow! I choose to really like that" or play a different game and say "Wow. I choose not to like that." To me whether or not you like something is intrinsic to the experience of the game itself.

Fine, but I don't see how my choice of word ("decide to like"), about exactly how you end up liking something, is influencing the issue about consumption.

I didn't even intend to imply anything about the nature of piracy with that word, it was just a turn of phrase.

You might replace the phrase with "end up liking", and the rest of my post would have the same overall message.

To assume that people will pay for something they already have when they pirated/stole it just because they liked it seems a bit naive to me. Now I can't speak for everyone but I brought it up with one of my friends and they said, "Why? I already have the game. Not like I need two copies."

That claim only makes sense in specific circumstances where you can pirate, but it's complicated, for example if you have a very slow internet, or very little skill and knowledge to do it. That would explain why you think of "already having the game", as a special circumstance, compared to the game being availaable to you on the Internet.

For example, a few weeks ago, I torrented a game that I already own (Syberia 2), because I didn't feel like standing up from my comfy chair and walking over to the discs shelf and then put it in the PC. Starting a download took just a handful of clicks, and then a few minutes of casual web-browsing later, the client reminded me that the game is ready.

For anyone who is sufficiently familiar with how the Internet works, "I already have the game" is practically true for every game in the world, whether or not it already happens to be on your hard drive at the moment wouldn't make it easier or harder to decide to reward the publisher.

The only thing that stops me from pirating them all, is an ethical arguement, not the fact that I haven't downloaded them yet anyways so somehow buying is that much more practical than if I would have.

OT: You can't standardize morals or ethics. What I find abhorrent (stealing/pirating/lying/cheating etc.) may not be true for everyone else.

While that's true, certain moral statements can still based on logical fallacies, while others are more accurately describing where the differences in our subjective worldviews truly lie.

I have observed and participated in many copyright discussion, and found only two statements that stand on their own as acceptable declarations of subjective morality.

First, the belief that respecting laws is virtous for it's own sake. Second, the belief that everything that has a value should also have a price, so every value and benefit must be distributed proportionally based on how much of it we can afford.

Beyond these, copyright/piracy arguments are also riddled with logical fallacies, bad analogies (the whole "ownership-property-theft-product-taking away" circle), with statements that are unsupported by the speaker's other daily actions and beliefs, ("we must always respect artists' wishes on how they want to make a profit"), and economical ad absurdums ("if everyone would pirate everything, nothing creativewould every get made").

In this particular thread, the favorite seems to be the stetement that piracy can be large scale/piracy doesn't deprive the first user of a copy, without any explanation on how this actually makes a moral difference.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

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

I don't see why deleting the game when they're done would make any difference. Either way they're enjoying the fruits of other people's labour without paying, what difference would it make whether it was on their computer for one week or one year?

To me, it's kind of like sneaking into a movie theatre or riding on a train without paying for a ticket. You can argue, "hey, as long as I'm not taking up someone else's seat, why does it matter?", but it's still pretty immoral.

 

[Silvanus]

So how is that different from someone who pirates a game first, decides to like it, and buy it later being motivated by ethics?

2.) I have many friends who have downloaded games and loved them. Out of all of them, how many have gone back and purchased the same game? Zero. None. Not a one. To assume that people will pay for something they already have when they pirated/stole it just because they liked it seems a bit naive to me.

Actually, I know somebody who does that, pretty much. He downloads numerous albums just to see what they're like (and, if he had to pay for every one, he wouldn't; he downloads on the offchance he'll find hidden gems).

When he does find something he likes, he will frequently see the artist in concert (something that musicians tend to see a lot more money from than album sales, as it happens).