Interesting article regarding piracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd disagree about ideas being stolen in the sense of theft. When someone 'steals' an idea, they're not erasing the inventors memory. He retains the idea.

Patents and copyrights both exist for the same reason. To generate a financial incentive for inventors to invent by granting them limited monopolistic rights. They were also designed to be moderated by the general public's rights, hence the idea of fair use, public domain, and first sale doctrine. (Doctrine of first sale is why Ubisoft doesn't deserve compensation for you buying a used game off Ebay)

As for my background, I generate copyrighted works for a living as I'm a software engineer. I also have a pretty good understanding of copyright law, it's formation, and it's evolution over the years... it's something of a hobby. The large publishing companies have been doing quite the PR campaign over the years to convince the public that they have fewer rights than they do. The sad part is that, as evidenced by these threads, it appears to be working :(
 
WabeWalker said:
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.
Click to expand...

You love your straw man arguments don't you.

Yes Ubi did the right thing by not including DRM on PoP 2008, but guess what...it was not a good port, what's worse it was not even a good game! It was a complete pile of stinking turd shit, and I know this because I bought and finished it!

Oh my god....people did not buy a shitty ass game, what a fucking revelation! What's that you say....people still pirated in circumstances where Ubi failed to release a demo to the market, wow just wow. :rolleyes:

Whilst we are making use of examples to ineffectually prove your point, why not look at something like starcraft. Weakest DRM ever, and moreover even encouraged you to install clone copies on your mates computers so they could enjoy LAN games for FREE! Did that impact upon sales? Why yes it did....its only one of the best selling games on PC of all time!! :rolleyes:
 
software doesn't even physically exist. how can something that doesn't exist be stolen? there can be a disk that exists but the disk is not the software. it is more to an idea. you can patten an idea, you can sell an idea but if i steal your idea and do nothing with it for personal gain you wouldn't even know i stole it?

if you paint a piece of artwork that i like, i view it go home and paint the same picture to 100% accuracy some how, then just hang it on my wall is that stealing?

if i pirate 5000 copies of the same game, is the same as stealing 5000 cars? or it is same as stealing the same car 5000 times and is that the same as pirating?

is pirating 5000 copies of the same digital material different then pirating 1 ?

if i learn to play a song i hear on the radio by ear, then play it back to myself is that stealing?

if i get a book from a library and jot down a quote from it is it illegal ? i am copying copyrighted material.

the point is none of the standard rules apply to digital content because it is not the same. you cant use the laws in the same for physical things as you can with ideas.




for you guys with strong opinions on this subject i think you ignore a ton of facts that prove it is gray area. it is quite puzzling to me. the RIAA like UK company tried to make a case that a mechanic was in violation of copy infringement because he listen to radio when he worked and other people could hear it. you realize you are on the side of fascists. they took it so far that playing your radio loud enough for anyone else to hear it was in violation of copyright. only the radio owner had the right listen to it. source

the problem is these people want to find ways to screw you out of every penny possible. they dont just want to stop people from pirating content, they want to stop you from letting your friend listen to a song that you bought but he didn't. these people dont have rational ideas they have extremest ideas. they want to make it so when you buy a music/movie/software you and only you get to use it and you can never sell it, also they want the copyright to expire limiting how long you own it.

99% of you that say you are legal, violate copyright laws in their opinion. if you ever bought a game used, sold a game, gave a game away, received a game from a friend, let a friend watch a movie you bought at your house, listen to any radio with someone else in range to hear it, copied a song from PC to MP3 player, burned to CD to use in CD player or used satellite radio, since it is digital people can record it at full quality so they tried to sue satellite radio stations. all of these things would be illegal if people like the RIAA had their way. these are the people we have to fight. they dont just want to go after pirates they want to go after YOU!.



when companies export software from the US they only pay taxes based on the value of the raw material not the value of the software. source they pay export tax on the value of paper and plastic not the software. how can they be such HYPOCRITES! guess who was the biggest lobby to get this passed to congress? microsoft!!!!!
 
gesicht said:
software doesn't even physically exist. how can something that doesn't exist be stolen?
Click to expand...

In my mind, I just liken it to the cable theft of the 80's and 90's. It was being broadcast regardless of people 'taking' it or not, and wasn't actively depriving the cable co's of product, but the government treated it as theft AFAIK.
 
Khanmots said:
The formal proof that they're the same requires calculus. However, there's a more relaxed proof that relies on a well-known axiom.
Namely, that for two numbers to be different, there must exist at least one number between them.

So, what number is more than 0.999 repeating and less than 1?

Most of the confusion that people have over this is not really understanding infinity. (I know, I struggled with it forever in grade school) You can't say a number with more 0.999s as that would imply that 0.999 repeating has a finite number of 9s. There isn't a number that's between the two. The two numbers are simply different ways of writing the same thing.

It's turned into an internet fad because it's a good way to seperate those who are willing to reevaluate thier beliefs based on facts from those who attempt to find facts to justify thier beliefs. You'll find people who will dismiss all the mathimatical proofs that exist, dismiss what thier professors say, and instead find some crackpot on the interwebs to use as evidence that they are right.



Who says I'm a pirate? I'd lay pretty good odds that I buy far more games, movies, and other copyrighted material than you.
Click to expand...

Ah, and now the hidden insults come out.

You spend far more games, movies and other copyrighted material than me. Oh, i'm sorry I might not make as much money every year as you, please forgive me.

You throw out that sly little comment about 0.9999 = 1 and then insinuate that i'm less intelligent than you, and that I must be in gradeschool since I haven't taken a bunch of calculus classes and had never heard that 0.9999 = 1 crap before. Nice one.

On another note, I still haven't seen a valid response that explains how downloading an illegal copy of a game is any different than walking into the store and snatching the box. Literally the only difference is in the case of the disk you are stealing about $1.75 worth of materials.
 
IMO, if more companies put out free demos of their games i would pirate less

i can not tell you the money i wasted on games such as crysis that would have been avoided had i known how shitty of a game it is
 
gesicht said:
software doesn't even physically exist. how can something that doesn't exist be stolen? there can be a disk that exists but the disk is not the software. it is more to an idea. you can patten an idea, you can sell an idea but if i steal your idea and do nothing with it for personal gain you wouldn't even know i stole it?

if you paint a piece of artwork that i like, i view it go home and paint the same picture to 100% accuracy some how, then just hang it on my wall is that stealing?

if i pirate 5000 copies of the same game, is the same as stealing 5000 cars? or it is same as stealing the same car 5000 times and is that the same as pirating?

is pirating 5000 copies of the same digital material different then pirating 1 ?

if i learn to play a song i hear on the radio by ear, then play it back to myself is that stealing?

if i get a book from a library and jot down a quote from it is it illegal ? i am copying copyrighted material.

the point is none of the standard rules apply to digital content because it is not the same. you cant use the laws in the same for physical things as you can with ideas.
Click to expand...

despite my username, i dont really understand your argument, i completely understand that pirating = stealing, but i dont see how software, an *idea* that took months of funding and labor to create, can be taken for free without considering that stealing.
 
It is not viewed as theft under U.S. law, Pirate.

You may have your own viewpoint, but as far as the law is concerned, the distinction is perfectly clear.
 
piracy is theft.

because you deprive the publisher or author the value of thier work with premission.


this has been decied along time ago, it not even discussion anymore, intellectual property has the same value and meaning as real property.

so again legally

piracy=larceny=theft.
 
Wizardhawk said:
On another note, I still haven't seen a valid response that explains how downloading an illegal copy of a game is any different than walking into the store and snatching the box. Literally the only difference is in the case of the disk you are stealing about $1.75 worth of materials.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't this read "On another note, I have not ACCEPTED a valid response...."

... Anyway, here is EXACTLY how it is different: If I go into a store and steal a physical copy of a game then the store, which bought that copy from the publisher, is now out the wholesale price of that game, Perhaps $25 on a game priced $50.

If I download an illegal copy of a game that I would otherwise have stolen from the store then the store has no monetary loss AT ALL.

In both cases the publisher has no monetary loss since I was NEVER going to pay for the game either way.

From a legal standpoint stealing from the store was theft, but downloading the copy online was copyright infringement. This is a factual and undeniable LEGAL difference.

Nobody is arguing that copyright infringement is right, or good, or morally acceptable, just that it is not theft BY THE STRICT LEGAL DEFINITION, that is all.

The problem on this thread is that Wizardhawk is not talking about the same thing as everyone else. He is talking about the properties of fruit in general but calling all fruit apples, and everyone else is arguing about the properties of apples.
 
arentol said:
Shouldn't this read "On another note, I have not ACCEPTED a valid response...."

... Anyway, here is EXACTLY how it is different: If I go into a store and steal a physical copy of a game then the store, which bought that copy from the publisher, is now out the wholesale price of that game, Perhaps $25 on a game priced $50.

If I download an illegal copy of a game that I would otherwise have stolen from the store then the store has no monetary loss AT ALL.

In both cases the publisher has no monetary loss since I was NEVER going to pay for the game either way.

From a legal standpoint stealing from the store was theft, but downloading the copy online was copyright infringement. This is a factual and undeniable LEGAL difference.

Nobody is arguing that copyright infringement is right, or good, or morally acceptable, just that it is not theft BY THE STRICT LEGAL DEFINITION, that is all.

The problem on this thread is that Wizardhawk is not talking about the same thing as everyone else. He is talking about the properties of fruit in general but calling all fruit apples, and everyone else is arguing about the properties of apples.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

IT is theft by legal definition. Why do people talk about stuff they know nothing about. larceny being restricited to tangible property" died a long time ago. The law long ago recognized intagible property rights and property. You gaining the benefits of pirated software without permission or payment, IS LEGAL THEFT.

The reason why most state write the copyright infringment statues, is that those usally dont require intent, mere possesion is good enough. However most larceny statues require proof of intent. but neverthless piracy if you could prove intent would work just fine under most if not all state larceny statues.
 
ikarinokami said:
piracy is theft.

because you deprive the publisher or author the value of thier work with premission.


this has been decied along time ago, it not even discussion anymore, intellectual property has the same value and meaning as real property.

so again legally

piracy=larceny=theft.
Click to expand...

Did you at least bother to read any of this thread?

Definition of Larceny
the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently
Click to expand...
Piracy is not theft. That does not mean it is legal, it just means it is not theft. A cup is not an orange. That does not mean a cup is a fruit, it just means it is not an orange.

Everyone claiming that piracy is theft is trying to come to a conclusion based on faulty logic. Again, nobody is trying to "justify" piracy. However, to truly understand the arguments of WHY piracy is wrong, one must first know the proper definitions of the words that are selected.

Copyright infringement is wrong. It is illegal. We do not support it. Just like we do not support someone stealing from a store or our homes.
 
Wizardhawk said:
Ah, and now the hidden insults come out.

You spend far more games, movies and other copyrighted material than me. Oh, i'm sorry I might not make as much money every year as you, please forgive me.

You throw out that sly little comment about 0.9999 = 1 and then insinuate that i'm less intelligent than you, and that I must be in gradeschool since I haven't taken a bunch of calculus classes and had never heard that 0.9999 = 1 crap before. Nice one.

On another note, I still haven't seen a valid response that explains how downloading an illegal copy of a game is any different than walking into the store and snatching the box. Literally the only difference is in the case of the disk you are stealing about $1.75 worth of materials.
Click to expand...

You're right there was a subtle insult in there. However you didn't catch it.

The things you listed weren't insults. Since you don't believe that 0.999... = 1 and kind of stated that you hadn't really been told why it is so, I assumed that you haven't had calculus. (As the proof of this is an integral (haha?) part of many profs teachings.) So I gave an informal proof that avoids its use. Lack of education != lack of intelligence. How you respond to education on the other hand...

And no, my mentioning my spedning habits wasn't taking a dig at you. I simply know that I have more expendable income than most. It's kind of inherent in being a single engineer, I don't have any wife or kids or other dependents to take care of so I can afford to spend more money on myself than most people, even those who make more than me (and that's not all that hard). I was making the statement in repsonse to your insulting assertation that I'm an evil pirate who doesn't support the people whose games I enjoy.

As for the difference beween downloading and stealing, it seems like you finally understand. Theft requires you to take something away from someone else. i.e., a box with a CD. Copyright infringment requires you to make an unauthorized copy.

The difference isn't in what you obtain, the difference is in what someone else loses.
 
Who cares about the word 'theft.' The important thing is, is that piracy and theft have some commonality. Call them different, that's fine if you think so or not so, but apples and oranges have a lot in common, and they are both fruit. Taking what's not yours is taking what's not yours.

Khanmots said:
I'd disagree about ideas being stolen in the sense of theft. When someone 'steals' an idea, they're not erasing the inventors memory. He retains the idea.
Click to expand...

Right, it's not about taking his memory away, but his compensation. No need to call it theft. "stealing" is a more broad term than theft, and a good word for not getting stuck in quite as many arguments in semantics.

Khanmots said:
Patents and copyrights both exist for the same reason. To generate a financial incentive for inventors to invent by granting them limited monopolistic rights. They were also designed to be moderated by the general public's rights, hence the idea of fair use, public domain, and first sale doctrine. (Doctrine of first sale is why Ubisoft doesn't deserve compensation for you buying a used game off Ebay)

As for my background, I generate copyrighted works for a living as I'm a software engineer. I also have a pretty good understanding of copyright law, it's formation, and it's evolution over the years... it's something of a hobby. The large publishing companies have been doing quite the PR campaign over the years to convince the public that they have fewer rights than they do. The sad part is that, as evidenced by these threads, it appears to be working :(
Click to expand...

Doctrine of first sale is of course law. I just brought it up from a moral point of view. It raises a lot of interesting question about due compensation and piracy.

I guess you think I'm fooled by evil publishing companies propaganda. They are the angels of light! We should bow down to them and give to them their every desire. :p Actually, I think they have gone overboard with their power to license software out or treat software as a service. Microsoft's ability to license their products for maximum profit is a little overboard. They have too many 'plans' to use their stuff (that is if you're getting more than just "home user" software). I have no love for the RIAA/MPAA. If anything, they make me want to be a pirate. But that doesn't make piracy right either.

If I lived in a fantasy dream world, the large publishers would be stripped of most of their legal power, while people would have a stronger sense of moral responsibility to properly pay the workers. And the "middle-man" cut would be proportionately small. But that's fantasy I guess. It is kind of funny when you hear about people pirating songs, then donating directly to the band. The record producers should get some for their work too... but man, the idea is quite amusing.
 
If this continues there's going to end up being a sub-section of the forum titled DRM Debate.
 
i know i'm chiming in late and it's prolly already been covered but -
you cannot use the iPhone as an indicator of PC piracy.

a.) I can't brick my PC with a wayward pirated app... maybe seriously hurt it (i.e. virus)

b.) To say that developers are only "losing 10%" of sales from pirating?? LOL. Are you serious?
- I know I don't have any evidence to refute but c'mon, just 10%?

c.) Blame it on ports...? Really? I hate ports and $60 knock-offs as much as the next guy but you can't blame an iteration of a game to then turn a blind eye to greed. What beats $free.99?

Handheld PDA / Phone statistics don't correlate to the PC world.
 
ZacharyS said:
Did you at least bother to read any of this thread?

Definition of Larceny

Piracy is not theft. That does not mean it is legal, it just means it is not theft. A cup is not an orange. That does not mean a cup is a fruit, it just means it is not an orange.

Everyone claiming that piracy is theft is trying to come to a conclusion based on faulty logic. Again, nobody is trying to "justify" piracy. However, to truly understand the arguments of WHY piracy is wrong, one must first know the proper definitions of the words that are selected.

Copyright infringement is wrong. It is illegal. We do not support it. Just like we do not support someone stealing from a store or our homes.
Click to expand...

Owned!
 
if only 10% of iphones are jail broken then the maximum number of people that can pirate an app will be 10% of the customer base.

as for what beats free?

The answer is good customer support, updates and a quality product. That beats free.
 
indokyne said:
b.) To say that developers are only "losing 10%" of sales from pirating?? LOL. Are you serious?
- I know I don't have any evidence to refute but c'mon, just 10%?
Click to expand...

Well, considering that I've posted evidence provided by a publisher that showed that thier conversion rate from pirated copies to sales was approximately 0.1% I'd say that granting them 10% lost sales is a huge huge overstatement.
 
anyone who says piracy is not theft is pretty much totally lacking in the common sense/morals department. if the games is being sold at retail or online and you did not pay for for the copy you have, you STOLE it. It's that simple.
 
Kind of misleading, the success story of Blizzard they cite is because of the multiplayer component in their games. Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo are all tailored for multiplayer. People still pirate SC all the time because the only multiplayer worthy server worth playing on is ICCUP, which doesn't require a valid key. Warcraft and Diablo on the otherhand are slightly less fortunate from a pirate perspective because the good servers are Battle.net (but I hear the Chinese have a solid private WC3 server), which does require a valid key, although with all the hacks going around, that part could be argued.

Blizzard is alive and well because its games have a multiplayer component that usually requires a legit copy for a good multiplayer experience. Small indie developers and developers with single player-centric games have alot more to lose if their game isn't sporting a solid multiplayer experience that requires authentication.
 
Last edited:
ZacharyS said:
Did you at least bother to read any of this thread?

Definition of Larceny

Piracy is not theft. That does not mean it is legal, it just means it is not theft. A cup is not an orange. That does not mean a cup is a fruit, it just means it is not an orange.

Everyone claiming that piracy is theft is trying to come to a conclusion based on faulty logic. Again, nobody is trying to "justify" piracy. However, to truly understand the arguments of WHY piracy is wrong, one must first know the proper definitions of the words that are selected.

Copyright infringement is wrong. It is illegal. We do not support it. Just like we do not support someone stealing from a store or our homes.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

modern property law also includes intangible propety, like intellectual property like copyrights,

The law of property now embraces the bundle of sticks rights model. you are no longer viewed as merely owning property but the intagible rights that go with the property. A person who owns a copyright for a book or software, under the law as understood now, also has the right to profit and exclude others.

when you buy a book, some of the sticks but not all sticks transferrs to the new owner, such as the ability to make a back up copy, the ability to resell the copy you brought or give it away. anytime you deprive the owner of property wether tangible or intangible of some or the sticks that the owner was entitled to, you have commited larceny. there was also a time when larceny required the person to take and remove the property, so tricking somone wouldn't count, so the courts invented larceny by trick, the law evolves, and criminal law in particular.

I would suggest you take a federal law class or read the model penal code, or any recent treatise or property rights and larceny or a case book on the subject.
never count on a dictionary definition to help you with the law, esp when it comes to criminal law, you need to read the statutue, and the case law where meaning of the breadth and width of the statue is enumerated..
 
Last edited:
ikarinokami said:
I would suggest you take a federal law class or read the model penal code, or any recent treatise or property rights and larceny or a case book on the subject.
never count on a dictionary definition to help you with the law, esp when it comes to criminal law, you need to read the statutue, and the case law where meaning of the breadth and width of the statue is enumerated..
Click to expand...

Every law I've read includes very important wording which indicates in order to be considered larceny, the offense must involve depriving the rightful owner of his or her property. Downloading a digital file does not do this. If you've got a better reference, I'd love to see it.

Something tells me though that if you did, you'd have referenced it already. As well, I'm sure if you knew of a case where someone had been charged with larceny for downloading pirated software(and has been CONVICTED of it too, since just being charged doesn't mean the law was used properly), you'd have already told us.

WHEN that happens, not if, you'll have an argument. Until it does, piracy is not theft.
 
Fail said:
Greetings, my name is Fail and I am your instructor today in Definitions 101. Wabewalker, Wizardhawk, and the rest of my fellow HardForum members, we are gathered here to ponder these weighty words and their definitions.

They are only two in nature, but have sparked, a somewhat contentious debate, and there's a dystopic, almost Machiavellian misunderstanding of their meanings. (Ok lol, i''m just having fun) *coughs*

Anyway, these words are: copyright infringement and theft. I present to you a source no less authoriative on the matter than Webster's Dictionary, you do understand Websters, don't you?

Main Entry: in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1628
1 : the act of infringing : violation
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Ok, so we have infringement, which means a person is engaging in the act of infringing, which is a violation. It's other definition is that it encroaches or trespasses on a right or priviledge, which in our case, indicates it infringes on the right of a company to sell their product to you.

Then we have theft which our friend Websters defines as:

Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: \ˈtheft\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thīefth; akin to Old English thēof thief
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball

the act of STEALING, the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, an unlawful taking (by embezzlement or burglary) of property.

So, what we have here, my friends is that by Webster's definition, the act of piracy is NOT stealing, as the owner of the property is NOT deprived of it, indeed, the property owner still retains his property. However, his property is infringed on, violated, and it encroaches and trespasses on the company's right and priviledge to sell you their property, which is games, given the subject we're talking about here today.

So therefore, thanks to a guest lecture by our friend Webster, we can conclude that it is incumbent upon us to make more judicious our choice in words and the definitions we choose to apply to them. If you say that piracy is stealing, you are quite incorrect, as glorious Webster has proven.

So, I say to you, my friends, we must preach against this infringement upon the true definition of these two terms as given by Websters!!! Go forth and preach the true message to the masses, leave no corner of the globe unturned.
Click to expand...

Websters says that piracy is NOT theft, sorry, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, just go straight to jail!
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
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..
Click to expand...

Huh?

What does this have to do with Prince Of Persia 2008 being pirated by Skidrow?

Okay, let's step through this one more time, shall we. We're debating about DRMs, right? Aren't you guys saying that DRMs don't work, and that companies might as well just drop them? Isn't that what this is all about?

So to repeat myself, Ubisoft, with Prince of Persia 2008, did the following:

1) They completely removed the DRM from the game. http://hothardware.com/News/Prince-of-Persia-2008-for-PC-is-DRM-Free/
2) They even lowered the price to $29.99 as an added incentive for people to buy the game instead of pirating it.
3) They created a game that was virtually bug-free, and that ran on a wide range of PCs - in other words, it was a fantastic port, which is something that all PC gamers shout and scream for.

A ridiculous number of people here at this forum have praised the group Skidrow, advancing the argument that Skidrow is doing gamers a service by removing the DRMs from games. In other words, people at this forum believe that Skidrow are good guys because they make games better - yes, shockingly, that is the argument.

Bullshit.

Skidrow are pirates - plain and simple. This group, like all pirate groups, is concerned with one thing, and one thing only: taking something that other people have worked hard for and making certain that people can have it for free. These groups have done more to harm the gaming industry than any other.

Skidrow, if they had had any ethics at all, would've said, about Prince of Persia: "Hey, this game doesn't have a DRM on it at all... and not only that, but it's a great port, and it's selling at a pretty sweet price-point... we're going to send the message to these companies that this is exactly the way to proceed by not pirating this game."

So what did Skidrow do with Prince Of Persia 2008 - did they leave it alone, and respect the fact that it was one of the first completely DRM-free games in years? Nope. They pirated the shit out of it.

And now we have yet another insanely ridiculous argument being advanced here by this forum member, sirmonkey, who writes of Prince of Persia 2008: "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."

What does that have to do with Skidrow pirating the game? Seriously, as far as the DRM debate is concerned, Ubisoft gave gamers EVERYTHING that they've ever asked for.

So now what? - we all have to sit down and have a great discussion about the quality of a game, and if it's decided, somehow collectively, that a game isn't worthy of our money, then whether it has a DRM or not, we're free to pirate it? Huh? What kind of a bullshit argument is that?

Okay, I thought Dragon Age was a piece of shit - am I allowed to pirate it then? A completely stupid argument.

And by the way, monkey brains, Prince of Persia isn't nearly the 'horrible' game that you claim it is. http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/princeofpersia?q=prince of persia

Oh look, IGN gave it a 93. And oh look, Gamespy gave it a 90.

Oh shit - only a 93 eh... well, I guess that that gives Skidrow the right to pirate the game then. "God damn that Ubisoft... good on them for removing the DRM from the game... but until they start making games that score higher than 95 they can go and fuck themselves... we're not going to put up with that shit and will be pirating their games... fuck Ubisuck... a 93... a god damned 93... we just can't fucking believe that...."
 
ikarinokami said:
I would suggest you take a federal law class or read the model penal code, or any recent treatise or property rights and larceny or a case book on the subject.
never count on a dictionary definition to help you with the law, esp when it comes to criminal law, you need to read the statutue, and the case law where meaning of the breadth and width of the statue is enumerated..
Click to expand...

How many people have the RIAA had arrested by the police for software piracy? None. They don't arrest people for that. They sue them. In civil courts, not criminal courts. Thieves who shoplift video games from stores go to criminal court and go to jail; pirates who get sued by the RIAA pay fines in civil courts. The shoplifter gets a criminal record, and the pirate does not. Notice the difference? Please tell us of any piracy case in which the pirate was charged with theft.

Note that I'm not talking about counterfeiting cases, in which people do get arrested, and which are not the subject of this thread.
 
WabeWalker said:
rabble
Click to expand...

No, he's saying that rather than try to use "lack of DRM" as a selling point (it's not), Ubisoft should have created a compelling product. Since when has a heavily consolized, baby-difficulty platformer been a hit for PC gamers?

The lack of intrusive DRM isn't going to magically generate more sales, but a heavily intrusive one can deter them. Check out Amazon.com for example; any game with a draconian DRM scheme will have 1-2 stars out of 5, with a huge number of reviews discouraging others from buying it. Case in point: http://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Cre..._3?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1273344617&sr=8-3
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
WabeWalker said:
........
Click to expand...

The game is rated 6.7 by user if yo can't even read..

I also bought this game, but not because it doesn't have DRM, its because I am a fan of PoP.

This game disappointed me, and by many others.
Why WOULD PLAYER BUY SOMETHING IF THEY DON'T THINK ITS GOOD?

Do I have to repeat myself ? Or you still going on with your own logic without realizing this GAME IS CRAP..?
 
"piracy as theft" really comes from the burning of cdroms and selling them as originals or discounted versions. I think everyone can agree that that is taking money from the everyone involved in the product. electronic copying? no, its piracy, a copyright infringement, but it is not technically theft. No doubt a lot of people WANT it to be so, but software pretty much stopped being "sold" a while back. Maybe it is theft of a "license". But I am not sure what that means.
 
This is indeed a very interesting outlook. It really does seem to support the idea that "I wasn't going to buy it anyways so they're not losing a sale" may actually be useful in determining loss sales to piracy (not that it makes it right to do). It also explains why actually good PC games still sell very well.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
anyone who says piracy is not theft is pretty much totally lacking in the common sense/morals department. if the games is being sold at retail or online and you did not pay for for the copy you have, you STOLE it. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

You completely fail to understand the definiton of theft and why it doesn't apply to piracy. Go educate yourself on the matter and come back to the discussion once you've got the basics right.
 
ikarinokami said:
modern property law also includes intangible propety, like intellectual property like copyrights
Click to expand...
Of which software piracy in the capacity being discussed has nothing to do with. IP theft is quite profoundly different, as should be obvious to anyone who has even the most most basic understanding of U.S. federal and state laws as it relates to these topics.

In your own words: "Take a...class".
 
PrincessFrosty said:
You completely fail to understand the definiton of theft and why it doesn't apply to piracy. Go educate yourself on the matter and come back to the discussion once you've got the basics right.
Click to expand...

phide said:
Of which software piracy in the capacity being discussed has nothing to do with. IP theft is quite profoundly different, as should be obvious to anyone who has even the most most basic understanding of U.S. federal and state laws as it relates to these topics.

In your own words: "Take a...class".
Click to expand...
You guys sound like people who had discussions of Internet crimes in the mid 90's when there were no laws. The closest you could come with are 'abusing a phone system' type of crime.

Regardless of the definition of 'theft' 'stealing' 'larceny' etc., taking something without paying, that you normally would of paid for, is wrong.

Unfortunately, because this is a digital crime, you fall into the hole of attempting to try to explain how you can steal something that can be infinitely replicated. The reality is you can't. There's going to have to be laws that say that using software, whether a bought version or pirated version, without purchasing the license (that comes in the retail box or is emailed to you), is a crime. This way the crime is using the software without a lisence, rather than just obtaining the software. I know it's no different than how things are now, but the law needs to reflect the license usage without paying, not the taking of the software itself.
 
Savoy said:
Actually makes sense to me.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...er-poor-pc-ports-not-piracy-hurt-business.ars
Click to expand...

It's bullshit. Someone playing the game who didn't pay for it is a thief. If the thief didn't pirate the game they would have to buy it otherwise they wouldn't be playing. If someone doesn't want to play the game they won't steal it (why bother?) but if they do want to play it they will either steal it or pay for it. So if they steal it then it's a lost sale.

Why yes, I DO work in the gaming industry and yes my employer IS affected by pirates.
 
bigdogchris said:
There's going to have to be laws that say that using software, whether a bought version or pirated version, without purchasing the license (that comes in the retail box or is emailed to you), is a crime. This way the crime is using the software without a lisence, rather than just obtaining the software. I know it's no different than how things are now, but the law needs to reflect the license usage without paying, not the taking of the software itself.
Click to expand...
yeah, I hope while all these laws are being passed they add some laws to allow transfer of ownership of licenses, including dlc addons, to forbid rootkit drms from being installed on machines, to ban restricted usage of software (need to be always online), to require digital downloads to be available in the future.

Yeah, there are a lot of laws that can be passed, and since you bring it up I think the paying consumers need some protection also.
 
ikarinokami said:
I would suggest you take a federal law class or read the model penal code, or any recent treatise or property rights and larceny or a case book on the subject.
never count on a dictionary definition to help you with the law, esp when it comes to criminal law, you need to read the statutue, and the case law where meaning of the breadth and width of the statue is enumerated..
Click to expand...

I've read large sections of Title 17 in their entirety. I've read several pivotal case studies in full. My understanding of the laws says that you're wrong; that copyright infringement is definitively not theft.

I'll rely on my first-hand research and readings of the actual law over your assumptions based on something that someone unknown told you sometime. Now, if you are read and versed in the law and have actual statutes that you'd like to share, I'd be happy to read them. Until then however, I'm going to keep assuming that you're full of it, and not changing my mind based on your unsubstantiated say-so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top