Were you one of the million banned from Xbox Live?

[michael.pa2]

I think that Microsoft had no right to do this. This is too harsh of a move. All those banned should collect in one big blob, hire some really good lawyers and open a collective lawsuit against Microsoft.

They'd lose.Modding the consoles is forbidden under the warranty,these people knew that,but did it anyway.I guarantee you if Sony has the ability to detect modded PS3's online,they'll eventually do the same thing,it's all about the money.

 

[Void]

Name me a mmo game that's free to play on the 360.

That wasn't my point. The point is, people bitch about others willing to pay for Live but yet alot of those bitching will turn around and pay to play WOW and the likes.
Yea i know now I'm gonna hear "I don't play WOW" from a bunch now, but we all know there are millions that do.

Another point I have been trying to make is that It's my money that's paying for the service, whether it be Live or an mmo, so what gives others a right to bitch about it?
But i see your just an argumentative type that just has to push there way of thinking on others till they agree with you. So we don't all agree about Live, so what. Don't like it, don't get it. Pretty simple right?

I'm done arguing with you. As i stated before and I'll say it again. It's my money and I'll spend it how i want.

Now what would be even funnier is if MS issued out a mandatory PC update that did the same thing to everyone's PC if it detected something like Illegal games, music ect..., lol. Then we would get to see who the pirates are on the PC, like we are on the 360, lol.

 

[snaggletooth]

I wouldn't laugh about your last comment, I'm sure such a 'patch' is on the way.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I think that Microsoft had no right to do this. This is too harsh of a move. All those banned should collect in one big blob, hire some really good lawyers and open a collective lawsuit against Microsoft.
I never owned an Xbox, but I think this is very unjust. Sure, pirating is wrong. But since someone owns the console, that someone has the right to modify this console any way he likes even if that is "illegal" by the manufacturer's standards. You don't see car companies breaking cars that were "modded" by their owners, do you?

One can argue, that this case is different, because these people connected to Live with the intent of playing a pirated game through multiplayer. But then I dare you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that each and every one of these people connected to live to play games!!! What if I modded my Xbox 360 simply for the challenge of doing so? What if I don't have a single pirated game, and I connected to live to update... or maybe I just connected to Live for the heck of it? What if I connected to download a DLC or a demo? Having an alternate firmware would ban my xbox anyway, no?

they have EVERY RIGHT to protect their content. They should not be allowing anyone to play any pirated games. They also should not be allowing people with modded firmware to play games either as the people who are not messing with their consoles would be at a disadvantage if the modded firmware allowed them to cheat.

 

[Yanks2435]

Not really dumb, since I'm discounting steam in the argument entirely just as you did when you offered XBL as an inferior choice to the other two based on the "free" factor. I agree with you that they aren't comparable, but you did, and so does everybody else, and that's where these discussion begin.

Steam absolutely did not start out as it is now. Maybe through rose colored glasses, but as someone who's used it since it's inception it wasn't always what it was today. Whats really funny is that Xbox Live came out before Steam. So now who's argument is dumb? Both have grown and improved over the years, and I really can't remember who added what when, so I'll leave that one to the wind.

The reason a lot of folks knock PS3 copy catting XBL features is because of how lacking it was at debut, where the answer to that was "it's free"

a lot folks get their dicks tied in knots over this stuff, the main point of the post was "to each their own"

I use all three, own a competent gaming PC, still don't view Steam as the social networking platform that XBL is, recently sold the only games I had for PS3 because I hate the damn controller but love the blu ray and HTPC features.


All I can do is shrug when people crow about one thing and eschew all others. All three are great to different people for different reasons.

*shrug*

I have used steam for a long time and yes I remember when it was not so good.

No one is saying one is better than the other, the argument is that charging for XBL is stupid when Steam and PSN do the same thing for free.

 

[Ranari]

yep, copying some 1's and 0's off of somebody doesn't really cause any losses to anyone, unless you want to go into the theoretical realm of "but he would have bought it! that's a lost sale!" bullcrap which isn't true 99% of the time, because people will pirate things just because theyre free, but they'd never actually pay for it.

where as going into a store and stealing a game off the shelf costs the store, the developer, the publisher, etc money. Because there's a physical item involved and in that case, yes, they lost a sale and also the cost of manufacturing the item.

Man, you should listen to yourself. What are you, 5 years old?

It's called *gasp* "intellectual property" and game developers have every right to protect their code. Just because it's not a tangible item off a shelf that you can hold in your hands doesn't make it any less apt to do damage. These companies spend millions developing games, millions more advertising them, and often have investors they must answer to. By stealing these "0's and 1's", you are hurting business.

We call that "theft", Mr. Rogers.

One of these days when you actually get out of your bedroom cave and think about possibly starting your own business for when, you know, you actually have to pay your own rent, will you see differently.

Oh, and this whole "It's my money and I'll spend it how I want to" doesn't work when you're buying into a contract. You break the contract rules, you get canned. Period. Except here the penalties aren't even a slap on the hand. Consider this, it's my money, and I'm going to view the zoo how I want; right up close and personal with the animal. Yep, excellent idea, right up until the tiger tore me into multiple pieces.

 

[sbtim]

Man, you should listen to yourself. What are you, 5 years old?

It's called *gasp* "intellectual property" and game developers have every right to protect their code. Just because it's not a tangible item off a shelf that you can hold in your hands doesn't make it any less apt to do damage. These companies spend millions developing games, millions more advertising them, and often have investors they must answer to. By stealing these "0's and 1's", you are hurting business.

We call that "theft", Mr. Rogers.

One of these days when you actually get out of your bedroom cave and think about possibly starting your own business for when, you know, you actually have to pay your own rent, will you see differently.

Oh, and this whole "It's my money and I'll spend it how I want to" doesn't work when you're buying into a contract. You break the contract rules, you get canned. Period. Except here the penalties aren't even a slap on the hand. Consider this, it's my money, and I'm going to view the zoo how I want; right up close and personal with the animal. Yep, excellent idea, right up until the tiger tore me into multiple pieces.

It's not my fault you don't understand the difference between copyright infringement and theft. Reproducing a video tape by making a copy of it is not the same as stealing it off the shelf in the store. It's the same with software. If you don't understand why, I suggest you try to get an edjamakayshun.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

It's not my fault you don't understand the difference between copyright infringement and theft. Reproducing a video tape by making a copy of it is not the same as stealing it off the shelf in the store. It's the same with software. If you don't understand why, I suggest you try to get an edjamakayshun.

taking someone else's media and making a copy if it IS THEFT. You are NOT PAYING for YOUR USE of SAID ITEM.


so you might want to go get educated as to what theft is:

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments. (See: larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement)

steal (stl)
v. stole (stl), sto·len (stln), steal·ing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Obviously when you steal that game you are using without permission or rights since you did not pay for the right to or permission to play the game.

 

[sbtim]

taking someone else's media and making a copy if it IS THEFT. You are NOT PAYING for YOUR USE of SAID ITEM.


so you might want to go get educated as to what theft is:

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments. (See: larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement)

steal (stl)
v. stole (stl), sto·len (stln), steal·ing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Obviously when you steal that game you are using without permission or rights since you did not pay for the right to or permission to play the game.

you are so fucking wrong and i wish you would stop posting the same stupid shit in every thread about the issue.

go spew your anti-piracy-hardon-bullshit somewhere else, or get a fucking life.

the fact that no one has ever been charged with theft for pirating anything tells me that I'm right and you're a moron

 

[Yanks2435]

Copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing and it has been established as that way for a while

 

[Ranari]

I am well aware of the two definitions and what they mean. However, wrongfully acquiring intellectual property for the sake of saving yourself some cash is, by definition, not only copyright infringement, but also theft, since you're denying its publisher their rightful earn of pay.

Reproducing a video tape by making a copy of it is copyright infringement, yes. However, we're not talking about reproducing VHS tapes here. We're talking about illegally downloading game software and playing it without paying for it, which isn't a whole lot different from walking into a store, grabbing a game off the shelf, shoving it into your pocket and walking out the door, now is it?

 

[sbtim]

I am well aware of the two definitions and what they mean. However, wrongfully acquiring intellectual property for the sake of saving yourself some cash is, by definition, not only copyright infringement, but also theft, since you're denying its publisher their rightful earn of pay.

Reproducing a video tape by making a copy of it is copyright infringement, yes. However, we're not talking about reproducing VHS tapes here. We're talking about illegally downloading game software and playing it without paying for it, which isn't a whole lot different from walking into a store, grabbing a game off the shelf, shoving it into your pocket and walking out the door, now is it?

who the hell says someone has any intention of buying software that they pirate? are you clairvoyant?

and yes it is a whole lot different once you take things out of the digital world into the physical world.

please, stop now and save yourself further embarrassment.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I wouldn't laugh about your last comment, I'm sure such a 'patch' is on the way.

there already is for MS's operating system but within a week or two it gets cracked anyway

 

[jonneymendoza]

taking someone else's media and making a copy if it IS THEFT. You are NOT PAYING for YOUR USE of SAID ITEM.


so you might want to go get educated as to what theft is:

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments. (See: larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement)

steal (stl)
v. stole (stl), sto·len (stln), steal·ing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Obviously when you steal that game you are using without permission or rights since you did not pay for the right to or permission to play the game.

but your not stealing the game. someone is giving it to you for free ie torrents and its not the exact same copy as the retail as it has been modified and cracked.

 

[Ranari]

who the hell says someone has any intention of buying software that they pirate? are you clairvoyant?

That's the entire point of pirating something; so that you don't have to pay for it. That's also what makes theft what theft is. When you acquire something through means without the intention of actually paying for it, you've got your definition of theft.

the fact that no one has ever been charged with theft for pirating anything tells me that I'm right and you're a moron

Companies aren't going to take individuals to court over a $50 of software, because the cost of taking individuals to court far outweighs the economic loss from that one incident. That's why they go after the people who are illegally copying and distributing software, because the loss potential is much, much higher, and the "investment" of taking somebody to court in this case is far more secure.

but your not stealing the game. someone is giving it to you for free ie torrents

Nice try, but that someone isn't hitting the download button onto your computer for you. You're still agreeing to acquire the software illegally, which by definition, makes it illegal.

 

[sbtim]

People have been taken to court for downloading music, and they weren't charged with theft. Now go play on the freeway, please.

And no one is saying it isn't illegal. What we're saying is, it's not theft. I guess this concept is too hard for your feeble mind to grasp.

 

[Ranari]

It's theft. Just because they weren't charged with theft doesn't mean it wasn't. Theft is the illegal acquisition of property, and in this case, video games and movies are intellectual property. It's also copyright infringement, since you're technically copying and acquiring through channels that aren't legal; something us individuals don't have the right to do.

What is it all, really? It's semantics. Now if we could have this conversation with you swearing and insulting anyone and everyone that disagrees with you, this might be a really good discussion.

 

[RanceJustice]

Theft implies that someone is denied the item in question. If grab a chair off the showroom floor and take it home without paying, that's theft. The store and the manufactures have one less chair they are able to sell. If I go to the store, take a picture of the chair, and then come home and build it out of my materials instead to create an unlicensed copy, that is not theft. The original chair is still at the store, but I did make an unauthorized copy. Also, there no net difference between me making the chair of my own (be it, unlicensed or not), and simply NOT buying the chair from the store - in neither case is the store getting my money. How can you say that if I was unable to copy the chair, I WOULD have purchased it anyhow? Perhaps it was too expensive, perhaps I didn't want to spend money that day etc... This is the key issue and one reason why saying piracy is equal to a lost sale is just incorrect. Its the difference between buying a beer, and having someone else buy it for you. If someone offers you a beer, you're likely to take it up because its free and easily available. If it was not free and easily available, there's a much smaller chance you'd actually buy one.

This piracy discussion is getting old. I can't wait until some sort of replicator a la star trek is invented, where it becomes trivial to push your garbage into it and program it to come out with a Ferrari, provided there were enough atoms in the garbage to build the car.

 

[Frankie]

yep, copying some 1's and 0's off of somebody doesn't really cause any losses to anyone, unless you want to go into the theoretical realm of "but he would have bought it! that's a lost sale!" bullcrap which isn't true 99% of the time, because people will pirate things just because theyre free, but they'd never actually pay for it.

where as going into a store and stealing a game off the shelf costs the store, the developer, the publisher, etc money. Because there's a physical item involved and in that case, yes, they lost a sale and also the cost of manufacturing the item.

You say it doesn't really cause any losses but then in the very same sentance admit that some of the people that pirate would have bought the game if piracy wasn't an option. You, sir, are brilliant.

 

[sbtim]

You say it doesn't really cause any losses but then in the very same sentance admit that some of the people that pirate would have bought the game if piracy wasn't an option. You, sir, are brilliant.

No, I said that you can't say "he would have bought it" because you have no idea if that's true or not.

 

[Frankie]

Theft implies that someone is denied the item in question. If grab a chair off the showroom floor and take it home without paying, that's theft. The store and the manufactures have one less chair they are able to sell. If I go to the store, take a picture of the chair, and then come home and build it out of my materials instead to create an unlicensed copy, that is not theft. The original chair is still at the store, but I did make an unauthorized copy. Also, there no net difference between me making the chair of my own (be it, unlicensed or not), and simply NOT buying the chair from the store - in neither case is the store getting my money. How can you say that if I was unable to copy the chair, I WOULD have purchased it anyhow? Perhaps it was too expensive, perhaps I didn't want to spend money that day etc... This is the key issue and one reason why saying piracy is equal to a lost sale is just incorrect. Its the difference between buying a beer, and having someone else buy it for you. If someone offers you a beer, you're likely to take it up because its free and easily available. If it was not free and easily available, there's a much smaller chance you'd actually buy one.

This piracy discussion is getting old. I can't wait until some sort of replicator a la star trek is invented, where it becomes trivial to push your garbage into it and program it to come out with a Ferrari, provided there were enough atoms in the garbage to build the car.

The fact that some people would buy it and some wouldn't doesn't make it any less wrong or any less illegal. It's a red herring. As is the theft or not argument. Both arguments are a waste of time.

 

[sbtim]

The fact that some people would buy it and some wouldn't doesn't make it any less wrong or any less illegal. It's a red herring. As is the theft or not argument. Both arguments are a waste of time.

Then take your anti-piracy-boner out of here and go do something else.

 

[Frankie]

No, I said that you can't say "he would have bought it" because you have no idea if that's true or not.

No, you said it doesn't really cause any losses. Read your own post.

 

[Frankie]

Then take your anti-piracy-boner out of here and go do something else.

Get a job and get out of here and quit being a broke loser.

 

[sbtim]

Get a job and get out of here and quit being a broke loser.

I never said I pirated anything?

 

[Frankie]

I never said I pirated anything?

Uh huh, I'm sure you haven't. You're just an ass that likes advocating illegal behavior that hurts the gaming industry. F you buddy. It's worthless turds like you that have shit the PC gaming industry down the toilet.

 

[RanceJustice]

The fact that some people would buy it and some wouldn't doesn't make it any less wrong or any less illegal. It's a red herring. As is the theft or not argument. Both arguments are a waste of time.

Less illegal? No, of course not. Less wrong? That's up for debate. Smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home is illegal where I reside, mostly because industrialists at the beginning of the 20th century were afraid of industrial hemp supplanting the timber and cotton industries, and white men were afraid their daughters were going to have sex with jazz musicians and mexicans. It may be illegal, but I find the reasons behind its illegality to be unethical, as well as punishment for growing said crop.

Lets try another hypothetical. Your friend has purchased a game and grows tired of it, so he gives it to you. This means that you do not need to pay the company for access to another copy! Functionally, its the same as piracy - the company doesn't get a cent from you and you get a copy of the game. The only reason this is still legal is due to doctrine of first sale in most countries, and the media industry is trying as hard as possible to make it illegal or impossible to resell things you've purchased (see: Steam games!). There is no way to justify used game sale, without justifying piracy.

 

[sbtim]

It's worthless turds like you that have shit the PC gaming industry down the toilet.

And that's why you're an idiot. People have been pirating things since the dawn of time and yet the world still goes on.

I'm not saying it's moral, legal, or whatever, but to say it RUINED PC GAMING is kind of stupid.

 

[sbtim]

Less illegal? No, of course not. Less wrong? That's up for debate. Smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home is illegal where I reside, mostly because industrialists at the beginning of the 20th century were afraid of industrial hemp supplanting the timber and cotton industries, and white men were afraid their daughters were going to have sex with jazz musicians and mexicans. It may be illegal, but I find the reasons behind its illegality to be unethical, as well as punishment for growing said crop.

I don't see what this has to do with piracy but I agree with you....

 

[RanceJustice]

I don't see what this has to do with piracy but I agree with you....

Oh I was just saying that just because something is illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong/immoral/unethical.

 

[Frankie]

Less illegal? No, of course not. Less wrong? That's up for debate. Smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home is illegal where I reside, mostly because industrialists at the beginning of the 20th century were afraid of industrial hemp supplanting the timber and cotton industries, and white men were afraid their daughters were going to have sex with jazz musicians and mexicans. It may be illegal, but I find the reasons behind its illegality to be unethical, as well as punishment for growing said crop.

No one cares, there's zero correlation between the two situations.

Lets try another hypothetical. Your friend has purchased a game and grows tired of it, so he gives it to you. This means that you do not need to pay the company for access to another copy! Functionally, its the same as piracy - the company doesn't get a cent from you and you get a copy of the game. The only reason this is still legal is due to doctrine of first sale in most countries, and the media industry is trying as hard as possible to make it illegal or impossible to resell things you've purchased (see: Steam games!). There is no way to justify used game sale, without justifying piracy.

They're not even remotely the same thing. If you want to buy a game and then pass it on every week to a different person and take a million weeks to let a million people play it go for it. Pretending it's the same as a million people downloading an illegal copy of the game all at once and all playing it simultaneously is ludicrous. Try again.

 

[Frankie]

Oh I was just saying that just because something is illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong/immoral/unethical.

You don't think taking/using the fruits of someone elses labor without their permission and without compensation is unethical?

 

[sbtim]

You don't think taking/using the fruits of someone elses labor without their permission and without compensation is unethical?

Piracy is unethical, there's no denying that.

But it's not the world destroyer that people make it out to be...

 

[illuminate]

Lets try another hypothetical. Your friend has purchased a game and grows tired of it, so he gives it to you. This means that you do not need to pay the company for access to another copy! Functionally, its the same as piracy - the company doesn't get a cent from you and you get a copy of the game. The only reason this is still legal is due to doctrine of first sale in most countries, and the media industry is trying as hard as possible to make it illegal or impossible to resell things you've purchased (see: Steam games!). There is no way to justify used game sale, without justifying piracy.

I like what you're saying here, and I have an honest question:

My friend gave me his copy of CS:S. It still had the packaging from walmart on it. He had obviously never opened it, but gave it to me. Did i break a law by accepting it? I'm just curious.

 

[RanceJustice]

No one cares, there's zero correlation between the two situations.



They're not even remotely the same thing. If you want to buy a game and then pass it on every week to a different person and take a million weeks to let a million people play it go for it. Pretending it's the same as a million people downloading an illegal copy of the game all at once and all playing it simultaneously is ludicrous. Try again.

So you agree that artificial scarcity is the only thing holding this tenuous argument together then, right? You're going back on your own argument. If each one of those people you pass the game to would have purchased it from the company had it not been available freely from you, it means a lost sale for the company right? That's what you were saying before with piracy. Time shifting doesn't make it right or wrong, if its not wrong when a small number of people benefit, then it shouldn't be wrong when a large number do.

There is no. functional. difference. Be it giving it physically to a friend, to giving it across the country via P2P the same thing is happening - people who didn't pay the company are getting to enjoy the product. Right?

The ONLY difference is artificial scarcity - that is to say, if the "game" is that physical disc, its simply HARDER to give it to a million people than if the "game" is a collection of bytes on a PC.

 

[RanceJustice]

I like what you're saying here, and I have an honest question:

My friend gave me his copy of CS:S. It still had the packaging from walmart on it. He had obviously never opened it, but gave it to me. Did i break a law by accepting it? I'm just curious.

No, as he didn't open or use the product (enter the CD key etc..) you're not in violation of anything to my knowledge.

Also, here's another interesting fact. The doctrine of first sale is supposed to mean that you can resell anything you buy to another, in its entirety. However, software companies use the convenient loophole definition of "The physical disc" rather than what is on it. That is to say, if you purchase a game and register the CD key to play online, there' no way for you to retract that registration when you're ready to sell the game secondhand. It is certainly technically possible - you petition to delete the account associated with the CD key, and the keyserver marks it as active again. Doesn't that strike anyone else as incorrect? In truth, any software that has a CD registration code or account creation on company keyservers, cannot be transferred. Of course, this is by design so that you can't actually sell this product you've purchased.

 

[Frankie]

So you agree that artificial scarcity is the only thing holding this tenuous argument together then, right? You're going back on your own argument. If each one of those people you pass the game to would have purchased it from the company had it not been available freely from you, it means a lost sale for the company right? That's what you were saying before with piracy. Time shifting doesn't make it right or wrong, if its not wrong when a small number of people benefit, then it shouldn't be wrong when a large number do.

There is no. functional. difference. Be it giving it physically to a friend, to giving it across the country via P2P the same thing is happening - people who didn't pay the company are getting to enjoy the product. Right?

Yes. Theres. Is. There is a VAST functional difference between 1 million people having 1 million copies and 1 person having one copy. I don't think you're using the right word. Functional means how it works, how it works in the real world, how it works in practice. If you think there's no functional difference between those two things, then I'm sorry, but you're dense. Maybe the word you're looking for is theoretical or philosophical, it sure as shit isn't functional.

You CANNOT pretend that they're the same thing and have the same ethical implications because you CANNOT pretend that they have the same real world consequences. GET IT?

 

[RanceJustice]

Yes. Theres. Is. There is a VAST functional difference between 1 million people having 1 million copies and 1 person having one copy. I don't think you're using the right word. Functional means how it works, how it works in the real world, how it works in practice. If you think there's no functional difference between those two things, then I'm sorry, but you're dense. Maybe the word you're looking for is theoretical or philosophical, it sure as shit isn't functional.

You CANNOT pretend that they're the same thing and have the same ethical implications because you CANNOT pretend that they have the same real world consequences. GET IT?

But if 1 copy gets passed around one million times, just because its a single physical disc doesn't mean that the CONTENT is not being "used" by multiple people, without compensation.

"Piracy" - Player obtains a copy of the game from another player, which at some point was a legit copy, downloads it over the internet and plays the game. Producer receives no compensation.
"Secondhand donation" - Player obtains a copy of the game from another player, which at some point was a legit copy, physically, plays game. Producer receives no compensation.

Functionally (indeed, in practice), either way the producer did not get paid. The player enjoyed someone else's work, and they got no compensation for it. Zero dollars to developer. That is the crux of your argument, correct? That is it is ethically wrong for someone to enjoy content without paying the developer? That is what is happening in both these scenarios.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

but your not stealing the game. someone is giving it to you for free ie torrents and its not the exact same copy as the retail as it has been modified and cracked.

yes you are,

This poster is a prime example of how our society is so messed up......cannot even understand the simple concept of theft.

you have product you did not pay for. you did not buy it, you did not legally aquire it (IE someone bought a copy and gave that copy to you)

 

[sbtim]

yes you are,

This poster is a prime example of how our society is so messed up......cannot even understand the simple concept of theft.

you have product you did not pay for. you did not buy it, you did not legally aquire it (IE someone bought a copy and gave that copy to you)

I thought we went over that, while it is unethical, IT'S NOT FUCKING THEFT.