• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Interesting article regarding piracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a fundamental problem with this article - it's that there's no acknowledgement that piracy is theft.

So many people seem completely unable to grasp the concept that these companies just don't want people playing their games if they don't pay for them.

How many times have I heard people say: "Well, most of these pirates weren't going to buy the game anyhow, so there really aren't any lost sales there." It doesn't matter. The companies don't want people playing their games if they haven't paid for them. It astonishes me that people can't grasp that concept. You can argue with people until you're blue in the face but they will never ever acknowledge that people who have worked on these titles simply don't want people taking free rides.

Doesn't matter if sales aren't being lost. The developers don't want people taking free rides.

Spin, spin, spin, spin...
 
WabeWalker said:
There's a fundamental problem with this article - it's that there's no acknowledgement that piracy is theft.

So many people seem completely unable to grasp the concept that these companies just don't want people playing their games if they don't pay for them.

How many times have I heard people say: "Well, most of these pirates weren't going to buy the game anyhow, so there really aren't any lost sales there." It doesn't matter. The companies don't want people playing their games if they haven't paid for them. It astonishes me that people can't grasp that concept. You can argue with people until you're blue in the face but they will never ever acknowledge that people who have worked on these titles simply don't want people taking free rides.

Doesn't matter if sales aren't being lost. The developers don't want people taking free rides.

Spin, spin, spin, spin...
Click to expand...

pirates will exist no matter if they like it or not..

theft will always be there if something is not free..

either take it or act it... what can they do to stop? nothing..

the DRM is just something to stop second hand market, nothing about piracy..
 
WabeWalker said:
they will never ever acknowledge that people who have worked on these titles simply don't want people taking free rides.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if people acknowledge it or not. The fact of the matter is that people will take free rides and there is nothing they can do about it. Crap like DRM just costs them money in R&D and licensing, and pisses off paying customers, costing sales. It's a terrible business decision, and as business people, they need to just accept that piracy will always exist and get on with the business of selling games.

We won't get into how people like you can't grasp the difference between theft and copyright infringement. The only thing that matters is that the poorly implemented DRM we've almost universally seen thus far is bad for the customer and bad for the developer.

Also this article's thesis is 'Make fun games and people will buy them. Piracy is a scapegoat for poor quality games.' which your post doesn't comment on at all. Let's try and keep it on topic, shall we?

I have to say I really agree with this. Games that are successful on PC are almost universally developed with PC gaming in mind, and the ones that aren't are at least reasonably well ported most of the time. I buy very few games these days because I just don't find myself spending much time playing them, and I think almost all of my money recently has gone to Valve and small indie developers. There's just nothing interesting to me coming out of the big houses.
 
WabeWalker said:
There's a fundamental problem with this article - it's that there's no acknowledgement that piracy is theft.
Click to expand...

And your fundamental problem is that you cannot grasp the conceptual difference between theft and copyright infringement. :rolleyes:
 
Quality > All

I paid for HL2, CS:S, DOD:S combo pack... years ago?

I can still fire up CS:S and have fun.

I will say this, Steam is the only way I have bought games in as long as I can remember outside of 1 game, and thats cause Amazon.com had a blowout from the developer of the game while Steam didn't have a discount on it (Sacred 2, a totally upsetting piece of shit, ruined by cdv, I got it for $14 off Amazon compared to $40 on Steam).

Some game I bought recently decided it didn't like me having Alcohol 120% installed, so it uninstalled / deleted / killed it.

I promptly removed the game, installed Alcohol 120%, and I'll never buy another game from that developer again. I am a legal owner of both the game and that software. I don't use it to pirate software, I use it to mount ISO images for VMWare cause there's no reason for me to use a CD/DVD drive physically when I can do it easier that way, and its faster (gasp).

DRM = Gun Laws, they only fuck the guy that's trying to do things properly. The pirate / criminal is going to acquire the means necessary no matter how extreme you think you can go, they're always gonna go 1 step further, if their need overcomes yours (and it will).

I played WoW for 4 years, I paid $15/mo for 4 years, why, because the QUALITY of the game and the enjoyment I got from it, trumped everything. Granted MMO's fall into that category of basically who cares if you pirate the CD, you still gotta pay per month anyway.
But I bought all of them, legit, I stood in line the night of release @ Midnight to get WoTLK.

In reality, I pirated more 10 years ago, and I had more money THEN, than I do now. So disposable income means nothing, its all about the experience, and as long as the product is a quality one, I'll buy it.

Again, Steam makes that all too accessible, and easy. Follow their model, don't bother with more more locks, its just 1 more key the pirates have to go through, and they will. Invest in better quality products, and voila.

I could also make the argument that the reason piracy is supposedly more wide spread now, is because PC's 10+ years ago cost $3,000. Not everyone owned one, they weren't in every home then, like they are now (in most cases in multiples). Therefore your target audience has grown, and likewise the same % that would pirate then, has grown too, and therefore because PC's are cheap, people pirate more. Again, no correlation between reality and factual data, but that never stopped politicians with handouts.
 
WabeWalker said:
There's a fundamental problem with this article - it's that there's no acknowledgement that piracy is theft.
Click to expand...

No, piracy is not theft. You wax lyrical about other people seeming unable to grasp basic concepts but fail to grasp the core concept yourself.

Doesn't matter if sales aren't being lost. The developers don't want people taking free rides.
Click to expand...

If you argument is that it hurts peoples feelings I don't think anyone doing pirating media really cares. Sorry.

As for the article itself, well I've made more or less these exact arguments myself, specifically about media. 2 very important things stand out here: F

First is that I don't know anyone who simply pirates all their media, most people who pirate media also buy a lot and studies have shown that for music sales the people buying the most music are the ones pirating it.

Second people that horde lots of warez could never pay for all of it, there's and old expression, you cannot get blood from a stone, people cannot pay what they do not have...I would hazard a guess simply from first hand experience that a large percentage of piracy is from people who simply want more than they can afford.

Sure it's not legal, and most of us understand that it's upsetting to at least some people but most people dont feel bad about it because in some circumstances it's a victimless crime.

The trick for developers is to make games people like, make good games, stop the shit console ports, and focus on honestly well built games for the PC. People do buy games it's an increasing market with more competition and like any other type of business there is mroe people fighting for a slice of the sales pie than the pie can support so death of some businesses is perfectly natural, it weeds out bad developers so in some ways is a good thing.

Make a good game and you'll make good sales, this is a well proven directly proportional relationship, you dont need massive budgets and fancy graphics to make a good game you just need to tap into the markets desires.

In some ways the greed that fueled developers to reach greater audiences by going multiplatform has lowered the quality of their game on the PC and has maybe caused the opposite effect.

I for one am happy this natural weeding out of bad developer still occurs it maybe the only thing that saves us from having 100% of games become shit console ports.
 
one of the good points.... if statistics are used to say 80% of iphone software was pirated but only 20% are jail broken, this is one thing that points out how meaningless the piracy figures are.

based on the number it would appear for every 5 sales 20 other people pirated the product.
but with the latter numbers it comes to for every 5 sales possibly 1 person pirated the product

this is a 20 to 1 ratio, a huge discrepancy. that is one of the reasons people have issues taking
the piracy claims seriously.
 
defiant007 said:
And your fundamental problem is that you cannot grasp the conceptual difference between theft and copyright infringement. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Who cares what the difference is? Seriously, I see this in every piracy thread. Who fucking cares?

To the other guy, he didn't mention anything about piracy being theft because it doesn't matter. People will take things for free, that's just the way it is. Movies, music and games will be downloaded or bought illegally.

The point of the article in terms of PC gaming was that if developers actually actually took the time to make a quality PC experience, instead of trying to make a quick buck maybe the people willing to buy games would do so more often.
 
^^ So very true, i own games that have always been worth it and have played over and over, i am tired of these buggy releases that feel more like Beta's on release day then a final product.

i wish people would stop running to buy games on releases day, and i wish someone would take these companies to court for selling a broken product...

Do you buy a car that only works on certain highways at X speed, until the company release a patch?

Do you buy a new phone that can only dial local numbers if you hold down * # until a new firmware is released?

So why buy a game that does't work on release day...
 
MrGuvernment said:
Do you buy a new phone that can only dial local numbers if you hold down * # until a new firmware is released?
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, it all comes back to accountability. If I buy a car that doesn't work properly, the dealership who sold it to me can be held accountable for that. In your quoted example there, I'd simply take that phone back to the store and get a full refund. If you buy a game, you're screwed, once they have your money it's theirs forever. What a great way to instill consumer confidence.
 
Basically we have a problem in gaming that goes back decades that boils down to this:

http://performancetrap.org/2010/04/23/pc-gamer-ubisoft/

^^ Good read.

...Cracked versions are a powerful incentive to download a pirated copy, because it’s a better product than the legitimate version.
Click to expand...

More often than not this is the case.

Developers need to do the opposite of the above. It's that simple. How they do it is up to them.
 
WabeWalker said:
There's a fundamental problem with this article - it's that there's no acknowledgement that piracy is theft.
Click to expand...

Seems like that's something fundamentally correct about the article. Theft involves denying someone of thier ownership of something, be that thier money, thier physical good, or thier time. That the action of you taking results in harm to the person you've taken from.

In other words theft implies a zero-sum game. For someone to gain someone else must lose the same.

Copyright infringment is different. Someone can gain without there being a corresponding loss. If Wabe were to get a copy of the software I work on, he'd have gained (well maybe... won't do him much good without millions of dollars of hardware he doesn't have) but neither I nor my company would have lost anything. Hell, it wouldn't even be the loss of a potential sale that copyright infringment laws are supposed to protect as 1) there's no method for him to legally obtain it, and 2) there's no way he could afford it even if there was.

WabeWalker said:
So many people seem completely unable to grasp the concept that these companies just don't want people playing their games if they don't pay for them.
Click to expand...

No we grasp that.

Unlike you however, we understand that the fact you don't want someone doing something does not make it theft. It might make it illegal, but it does not make it theft.

It's not theft if you photocopy a book, no matter how much the publisher wants you to pay them. It's copyright infringment.

It's not theft if you photocopy an old book, no matter how much the publisher wants you to pay them. It's not even illegal if it's old enough to be public domain.

It's not theft if you stand on the street and take pictures of my house, no matter how much I don't want you doing so. It's not even illegal.

WabeWalker said:
How many times have I heard people say: "Well, most of these pirates weren't going to buy the game anyhow, so there really aren't any lost sales there." It doesn't matter. The companies don't want people playing their games if they haven't paid for them. It astonishes me that people can't grasp that concept. You can argue with people until you're blue in the face but they will never ever acknowledge that people who have worked on these titles simply don't want people taking free rides.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what the developers or publisher wants; It doesn't make it theft.
What it does is make that free-ride copyright infringment.

You're confusing people that are aruging lack of harm with them saying that it's legal. If no sale is lost, then there is no harm done regardless of how much the company doesn't want someone getting a free-ride. An act can be illegal without generating harm. Some instances of copyright infringment fall in this category. Others, such as those creating and selling counterfeit copies, do not.

But you know all this. You're just trolling. I'm mostly posting to keep you from deluding others into believing your shtick is truth.
 
Khanmots said:
You're confusing people that are aruging lack of harm with them saying that it's legal. If no sale is lost, then there is no harm done regardless of how much the company doesn't want someone getting a free-ride. An act can be illegal without generating harm. Some instances of copyright infringment fall in this category. Others, such as those creating and selling counterfeit copies, do not.
Click to expand...

Well, no direct harm, but bad precedent is set. So harm does come when people let their guard down on their piracy habits or when their actions influence others who aren't quite as discriminating as to what they download.
 
Parmenides said:
Well, no direct harm, but bad precedent is set. So harm does come when people let their guard down on their piracy habits or when their actions influence others who aren't quite as discriminating as to what they download.
Click to expand...

Personally I feel that that's a good argument from a "is it moral" standpoint (although not necessariily one I agree with). but I don't think it's a good argument from a "should that be a definition of harm that you're legally responsible for causing" standpoint.
 
The very, very, VERY simple fact is that the acknowledgement that piracy is theft is for one entity and one entity only: THE POLICE. Unless you are the police, the fact that piracy is theft is 100% IRRELEVANT.

Software and gaming companies have a limited budget. Wasting that budget on 1) ineffective DRM, and 2) PR efforts aimed at highlighting piracy or 3) lobbying efforts aimed at increasing gov't efforts to fight piracy or prosecute pirates - spending money in these areas means less money for development. That is the whole point of the article.


WabeWalker said:
There's a fundamental problem with this article - it's that there's no acknowledgement that piracy is theft.

So many people seem completely unable to grasp the concept that these companies just don't want people playing their games if they don't pay for them.

How many times have I heard people say: "Well, most of these pirates weren't going to buy the game anyhow, so there really aren't any lost sales there." It doesn't matter. The companies don't want people playing their games if they haven't paid for them. It astonishes me that people can't grasp that concept. You can argue with people until you're blue in the face but they will never ever acknowledge that people who have worked on these titles simply don't want people taking free rides.

Doesn't matter if sales aren't being lost. The developers don't want people taking free rides.

Spin, spin, spin, spin...
Click to expand...
 
Khanmots said:
Personally I feel that that's a good argument from a "is it moral" standpoint (although not necessariily one I agree with). but I don't think it's a good argument from a "should that be a definition of harm that you're legally responsible for causing" standpoint.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I might shy away from touching that with the legal stick. But harm is harm. I don't want to see the developers being harmed. Morality aside, it is for the good of the gamers and industry to discourage piracy, even so called "ethical" or discriminating piracy, because humans don't always stick to their principles, and especially influential to others on the fence who feel more emboldened to pirate after seeing people who are comfortable with piracy.
 
Last edited:
TomGreen321 said:
Who cares what the difference is? Seriously, I see this in every piracy thread. Who fucking cares?
Click to expand...

The law, lawyers, judges, publishers, developers, pirates. I guess everyone involved cares.

Why wouldn't it matter?
 
The argument being advanced in this article is utter bullshit. Just utter bullshit.

It suggests that companies need to drop DRMs entirely, and focus their efforts on creating good ports - that's the argument correct?

Well, as it turns out, this is exactly what Ubisoft did with Prince of Persia 2008.

Yes, Ubisoft.

Yes, the same company that created the online DRM that gamers have been frothing at the mouth over.

Prince of Persia 2008 was an experiment for Ubisoft - they dropped the DRM from the game entirely, and created a fantastic port which was virtually bug-free and which worked on a ridiculously wide range of PCs... and then, just for good measure... probably because they were expecting the game to be heavily pirated in spite all of these efforts... they lowered the price to $29.99 as an added incentive for people to buy the game.

Okay, let's walk through this:

1) No DRM. At all.
2) Fantastic port. It absolutely does not get any better than this.
3) A starting price point of just $29.99 that was virtually unprecedented.
4) A game that was well received by the critics. http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/princeofpersia?q=prince of persia

Ubisoft gave gamers everything that they've ever asked for, and practically rolled out the red carpet for them.

Guess what happened as the result.

Gamers scream for these changes to be made, but when one of the companies does make these changes, not only do gamers ignore the company, but they continue to pirate their DRM free game anyhow.

DRMs don't work?

Oh really - well guess what, dropping the DRM and giving gamers exactly what they want doesn't always work either. The argument being advanced in that article, in the case of Prince of Persia 2008, has already proven to be bullshit. Utter bullshit.

http://hothardware.com/News/Prince-of-Persia-2008-for-PC-is-DRM-Free/

As for the second link, well, you'll have to find that on your own, but it shouldn't be too difficult if you know how to use google.

Oh look, it's our good friends Skidrow. And oh look at what they've done, they've decided to put up Prince of Persia 2008 for everyone to copy! Excuse me? I thought that Skidrow was there only to make life easier for gamers - to improve the games that have DRMs on them by removing those DRMs.

Bullshit.

Skidrow, if they really were the great heroes some of you believe them to be, would've said: "Prince of Persia 2008 has no DRM on it of any kind, the port is a fantastic one, and Ubisoft has even lowered the price to $29.99... we're going to support this move... because after all, this is what we've wanted all along... by not sharing this file."

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Just use Google and educate yourself about the great Skidrow.
 
WabeWalker said:
....
Click to expand...


You do realize the game is rated 6.7 on user ranting right?

Metric score is nothing but bullshit score, the only thing worth to look at is user rating..

how can 6.7 be good? :rolleyes:

also, even on console this game did not sell well... who to blame? :cool:
 
you can't take a sucky game, remove the drm and complain about piracy when it doesn't sell.
It's hard to believe how bad this game is. Prince of Persia 2008 feels like a bad animated feature. Unchalenging and simply not fun. And the name Prince of Persia does not belong to this game, it belongs to the 1989 Prince of Persia. Now that was a good game, not like this crap.
Click to expand...

to be honest I was not aware of this game. no doubt because nobody was talking about it. maybe they released it in secret. I guess there was no wow factor that pushes people to tell their friends.
 
WabeWalker said:
The argument being advanced in this article is utter bullshit. Just utter bullshit.

It suggests that companies need to drop DRMs entirely, and focus their efforts on creating good ports - that's the argument correct?

Well, as it turns out, this is exactly what Ubisoft did with Prince of Persia 2008.

Yes, Ubisoft.

Yes, the same company that created the online DRM that gamers have been frothing at the mouth over.

Prince of Persia 2008 was an experiment for Ubisoft - they dropped the DRM from the game entirely, and created a fantastic port which was virtually bug-free and which worked on a ridiculously wide range of PCs... and then, just for good measure... probably because they were expecting the game to be heavily pirated in spite all of these efforts... they lowered the price to $29.99 as an added incentive for people to buy the game.

Okay, let's walk through this:

1) No DRM. At all.
2) Fantastic port. It absolutely does not get any better than this.
3) A starting price point of just $29.99 that was virtually unprecedented.
4) A game that was well received by the critics. http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/princeofpersia?q=prince of persia

Ubisoft gave gamers everything that they've ever asked for, and practically rolled out the red carpet for them.

Guess what happened as the result.

Gamers scream for these changes to be made, but when one of the companies does make these changes, not only do gamers ignore the company, but they continue to pirate their DRM free game anyhow.

DRMs don't work?

Oh really - well guess what, dropping the DRM and giving gamers exactly what they want doesn't always work either. The argument being advanced in that article, in the case of Prince of Persia 2008, has already proven to be bullshit. Utter bullshit.

http://hothardware.com/News/Prince-of-Persia-2008-for-PC-is-DRM-Free/

As for the second link, well, you'll have to find that on your own, but it shouldn't be too difficult if you know how to use google.

Oh look, it's our good friends Skidrow. And oh look at what they've done, they've decided to put up Prince of Persia 2008 for everyone to copy! Excuse me? I thought that Skidrow was there only to make life easier for gamers - to improve the games that have DRMs on them by removing those DRMs.

Bullshit.

Skidrow, if they really were the great heroes some of you believe them to be, would've said: "Prince of Persia 2008 has no DRM on it of any kind, the port is a fantastic one, and Ubisoft has even lowered the price to $29.99... we're going to support this move... because after all, this is what we've wanted all along... by not sharing this file."

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Just use Google and educate yourself about the great Skidrow.
Click to expand...


lol i almost feel sorry for you writing that whole thing about a game that was horrible.. it wasnt even worth the 30 bucks.. maybe they should of actually experimented on a game that was worth a damn and might of actually sold instead of hoping that the lack of DRM would make people want to buy a game that was never going to sell in the first place..
 
Parmenides said:
I don't want to see the developers being harmed. Morality aside, it is for the good of the gamers and industry to discourage piracy, even so called "ethical" or discriminating piracy, because humans don't always stick to their principles, and especially influential to others on the fence who feel more emboldened to pirate after seeing people who are comfortable with piracy.
Click to expand...

Yep. And it's one of the reasons that I believe that the argued "harmless" piracy tends to only truely be harmless with either robots or in the context of a purely abstract thought experiment.
 
WabeWalker said:
...utter bullshit. Just utter bullshit....bullshit. Utter bullshit...Bullshit...Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
Click to expand...
I've cleverly edited your post in the above quote to reflect my own opinion of said post.
 
the big issue with piracy is not the piracy itself but the things being done to "fight" piracy.
pirates are not the ones keeping game companies in business.
It is the paying customers that do that.
All of us have been saying all along, put out a good product and we will support you
the software industry has been taking good products and turning them into horrible products with drm
the software industry is not like a farmer growing apples, where if someone steals a bushel you have less left to sell.
This is digital media that can be duplicated an infinite times at no cost.

What happens after that is a bigger question.

What percent of software is pirated as a demo then leads to a sale?
What percent of software is pirated but never installed?
What percent of software is pirated because it is not for sale in a country?
What percent of software is pirated because prices are too high?
What percent of software is purchased when a lower pricepoint goal is reached?
What percent of software is pirated by people that never intend to buy it under any circumstances?
For the people pirating software, what associated products/media do they buy, if any?

There has been an article from someone saying that they never found a case were a pirated copy was converted to a paying copy, but I doubt that someone would use the same account for registering both out of fear of having that account nuked.

Another interesting model is with the tax software. If you buy it, registration allows for access keys to do federal filing. If you "use up" your access keys you can still efile for a $15 fee. This IMO is a win-win for both the software and the consumers. (and yeah, I know you can file for free on a website).

anyway it is good that we are having the discussions. mainly because some common ground needs to be found with the consumers, the pirates and the publishers. drm is not the answer to any of these questions.
 
The problem with the whole piracy debate is that no one knows the real extent of the problem. The publishers like to equate every download (by whatever measure) with a lost sale, while everyone knows that that is completely not true. The pirates argue that pirates actually buy more games than the normal public, which, while maybe true, is irrelevant. Until you can quantify the actual cost of piracy (how many lost sales, not how many downloads) it's all just a bunch of arguing without substance.
 
Khanmots said:
Seems like that's something fundamentally correct about the article. Theft involves denying someone of thier ownership of something, be that thier money, thier physical good, or thier time. That the action of you taking results in harm to the person you've taken from.
Click to expand...

So to get it straight:

Theft = denying someone of money, physical good, or their time.
Pirated game = game you are playing that you did not pay for.

So, how is it not stealing if you took their game, without paying for it? You are in possession of their physical good, that they spent their time on, and you denied them of their money.

Saying that you wouldn't have bought it, therefore you didn't steal anything from them is like me saying that it's not theft if I steal a Bentley, because I wasn't going to pay for it anyways.

And since I know someone is going to throw out the 'but a car is physical property, so it's different' crap, games are sold on a CD/DVD, along with music/movies, or sold as data that gets stored on your hard drive if you download it.

I think the majority of people who are trying to claim that piracy isn't theft are simply trying to justify what they are doing, which is pathetic.
 
Wizardhawk said:
So, how is it not stealing if you took their game, without paying for it? You are in possession of their physical good, that they spent their time on, and you denied them of their money.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. You are not in possession of their physical good, you are in possession of a copy of their game, music, or other creation. This is an important distinction because it leads directly into the next bolded phrase. Nothing was denied them. You may have created a copy of something without their permission, but first of all that is not always illegal (copyright is limited), and second of all there is no direct loss to them.

If you really want to make an analogy to stealing a Bentley, copyright violation is like looking at the car in the showroom, going home and somehow duplicating it out of your own raw materials and memory/photos of the vehicle. This isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal.

I think the majority of people who are trying to claim that piracy isn't theft are simply trying to justify what they are doing, which is pathetic.
Click to expand...

No. The laws (and their intended purpose) are completely different and can't be equated like plenty of people try to do. They cover entirely unrelated concepts.
 
Krenum said:
Yep. Its what I've said all along. Make good games and people will buy them. Point in case: Blizzard. Good Article at least someone out there gets it.
Click to expand...

You seriously think Blizzard games don't get pirated? Is that why when Diablo II was popular there were 100's of websites where you could download the game and CD-Keys for it?
 
keenan said:
Emphasis mine. You are not in possession of their physical good, you are in possession of a copy of their creation. This is an important distinction because it leads directly into the next bolded phrase. Nothing was denied them. You may have taken something without their permission, but first of all that is not always illegal (copyright is limited), and second of all there is no direct loss to them.



No. The laws (and their intended purpose) are completely different and can't be equated like plenty of people try to do.
Click to expand...

How is there no direct loss to them when people are playing their game without paying for it like they are supposed to?

You say that it's not theft because it's a copy of something. So if I go rob 50,000 books from a Barnes & Noble, that's not theft, right? Cause, after all, they are simply copies of the book. In order to steal the book, according to your logic, I would have to go find the original copy that the author gives the publisher.

EDIT: Also:

A car is simply a copy of whichever model it is. Since I don't know model names for Bentley, i'll change my example to a ZO6 Corvette. If I go to the local car lot, and take myself 3 or 4 of these ZO6's, I would not be stealing according to you, because they are simply copies of a product of Chevrolet's design, just like the video games are copies of the game designed by 'Insert Company Name Here'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top