TheNitesWhoSay - Clan Aura - github
Reached the top of StarCraft theory crafting 2:12 AM CST, August 2nd, 2014.
Reached the top of StarCraft theory crafting 2:12 AM CST, August 2nd, 2014.
Game Piracy
Cartography Artisan
Games provide enjoyment, that's more a service than a good is it not? either way pirating has the base principle of taking something of value without paying.
SDE, BWAPI owner, hacker.
@Roy
Haha thanks for pointing that out.
But I still already mentioned why piracy is not stealing. Piracy can only be associated with stealing, like associating an apple with an orange, they are not one and the same, but they are still fruits. That is what I was trying to boil it down to.
If you want to go colour blind then that's fine, just know that you're claiming piracy is stealing as if it were some kind of fact.
Haha thanks for pointing that out.
But I still already mentioned why piracy is not stealing. Piracy can only be associated with stealing, like associating an apple with an orange, they are not one and the same, but they are still fruits. That is what I was trying to boil it down to.
If you want to go colour blind then that's fine, just know that you're claiming piracy is stealing as if it were some kind of fact.
An artist's depiction of an Extended Unit Death
Quote from 
Heinermann
HeinermannIf you want to go colour blind then that's fine, just know that you're claiming piracy is stealing as if it were some kind of fact.
Learn how EUDs work: A Mapmaker's Guide for Creating EUDs
Don't like learning?: EUDGen 2
Other stuff: Farlap Bound Maker
Dash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
Jog: Original Warp
Other: Super Mario SC Fireball Guard Your Civilian Strength Contest
Don't like learning?: EUDGen 2
Other stuff: Farlap Bound Maker
Dash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
Jog: Original Warp
Other: Super Mario SC Fireball Guard Your Civilian Strength Contest
Relatively ancient and inactive
I actually really like what Heinermann said, that piracy is distinct from both stealing and copying. It's true, the negative effect is significantly less than outright theft, but unlike in simply copying, there is a negative effect. As long as no one claims that piracy is, because it's not theft, justifiable, I see no problem with that.
Also, not to advocate piracy, but for certain businesses, it's better to have your product pirated than a cheaper, competing product used. No one can afford Photoshop, for instance, apart from professionals; however, it's so widely used because of piracy that everyone knows of it, there are tutorials about using it, and it's put onto a pedestal as the ultimate in photo-software. Likewise, for example, for Office or Windows, it's better for Microsoft to have people pirate their products if they can't afford them than to have them use competitors like Linux or Open Office. This is by no means a justification for piracy, but I believe that it might throw more fuel onto this fire.
Also, not to advocate piracy, but for certain businesses, it's better to have your product pirated than a cheaper, competing product used. No one can afford Photoshop, for instance, apart from professionals; however, it's so widely used because of piracy that everyone knows of it, there are tutorials about using it, and it's put onto a pedestal as the ultimate in photo-software. Likewise, for example, for Office or Windows, it's better for Microsoft to have people pirate their products if they can't afford them than to have them use competitors like Linux or Open Office. This is by no means a justification for piracy, but I believe that it might throw more fuel onto this fire.
None.
I order you to forgive yourself!
That's one if the most interesting points I've seen so far 
You are right, but there is a problem there. Certain businesses may be benefitted slightly because of piracy, but if the program is being pirated instead of buying the cheap immitation, the company that produces the cheap immitation will be losing out.
Obviously I would rather have the better product, but you are getting what you pay for. That means if you are paying nothing, you should be recieving nothing.
Instead of pirating something you aren't willing to pay for, pay for something that's within your price range.
There are free games on the internet. Yes, most of them suck, but you get what you pay for.
There is free indie music on the internet. Yeah, some of the artists might suck, but then again, you are getting what you paid for.
You are right, but there is a problem there. Certain businesses may be benefitted slightly because of piracy, but if the program is being pirated instead of buying the cheap immitation, the company that produces the cheap immitation will be losing out.
Obviously I would rather have the better product, but you are getting what you pay for. That means if you are paying nothing, you should be recieving nothing.
Instead of pirating something you aren't willing to pay for, pay for something that's within your price range.
There are free games on the internet. Yes, most of them suck, but you get what you pay for.
There is free indie music on the internet. Yeah, some of the artists might suck, but then again, you are getting what you paid for.
None.
I order you to forgive yourself!
Quote from name:K_A
...but you get what you pay for.
An artist's depiction of an Extended Unit Death
Quote
Stealing entails physically going to a store, taking something off a shelf, and walking out of the store without paying for it. In doing so, the thief takes tangible goods out of the store.
Say some company has a large stock of chairs, and I take one. That company still has a large stock of chairs (it's not like they don't have anything to sit down on now), so they aren't losing anything.
You can argue that now they no longer have that particular chair, since I've taken it, and because I didn't buy it, I am stealing. Now turn this to gaming. If I take a pirated copy of a game, that company no longer has that particular copy of the game, and because I didn't buy it, I am stealing.
The only difference in this example is "finite" versus "infinite," which we already thoroughly discussed as well.
The legitimacy to copy a game as a backup is even questionable. If you break or lose a chair, unless it's under warranty or other arrangement by the company/distributor, you can't get a replica for free, but you'd have to buy another chair. If you break or lose a game, some could argue the same thing. That is, unless, you consider that when you are buying a game, you are actually buying a license to play it, in which case, you should be able to keep personal backups and whatnot.
Learn how EUDs work: A Mapmaker's Guide for Creating EUDs
Don't like learning?: EUDGen 2
Other stuff: Farlap Bound Maker
Dash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
Jog: Original Warp
Other: Super Mario SC Fireball Guard Your Civilian Strength Contest
Don't like learning?: EUDGen 2
Other stuff: Farlap Bound Maker
Dash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
Jog: Original Warp
Other: Super Mario SC Fireball Guard Your Civilian Strength Contest
I order you to forgive yourself!
... For some reasons, your explanations seemed to be completely off... The comparisons you make are paralogismes (Couldn't find an English version.).
Quote
There is a big difference between what is now known as "piracy" and stealing. Stealing does constitute a direct loss of sales for a company. Stealing entails physically going to a store, taking something off a shelf, and walking out of the store without paying for it. In doing so, the thief takes tangible goods out of the store. It cost the company something to manufacture the packaging, to burn the CD, and to ship it to the store. Furthermore, the removal of that item from the store's shelf means that another potential customer may come in and find the shelf empty, in which case that potential customer will be unable to buy the product. The result of this is that the customer may end up buying a different product simply because the store was sold out of the original item. In this case, the thief has a direct, tangible effect on the revenues of a company.
Piracy is a totally different thing. With piracy, the pirate sits in his chair at his computer, looks on file sharing services for a copy of the full version of the software, and usually waits a few hours for it to download. It's true that the pirate is getting goods without paying for them, and that it's a morally unacceptable action. But that doesn't mean that he cost the company any money.
See, when a pirate downloads a full version of a piece of software, the pirate isn't leeching bandwidth from the company's servers. The pirate has to download the software from some other person who has already purchased it. So bandwidth costs because of the pirate are zero for the company. Furthermore, the pirate isn't depriving any other potential customer of the game: he has not physically removed a copy of the software from a store shelf. There's no loss of sale for the company there, either. Finally, the software company paid absolutely nothing for the packaging or manufacturing of the product. Given the nature of computer software, it was downloaded from someone else's computer; so no manufacturing was needed.
It could be argued that piracy amounts to lost sales because a pirate would be motivated to buy the software if he couldn't download it. However, given that pirates go out of their way to search the internet for pirated copies and to wait for the software to finish downloading, it's still highly unlikely that they would have ever bought the software, whatever the circumstances. Pirates don't want to go to the store, and they don't want to pay money for software. So this can't be legitimately construed as a loss of revenue.
Piracy is a totally different thing. With piracy, the pirate sits in his chair at his computer, looks on file sharing services for a copy of the full version of the software, and usually waits a few hours for it to download. It's true that the pirate is getting goods without paying for them, and that it's a morally unacceptable action. But that doesn't mean that he cost the company any money.
See, when a pirate downloads a full version of a piece of software, the pirate isn't leeching bandwidth from the company's servers. The pirate has to download the software from some other person who has already purchased it. So bandwidth costs because of the pirate are zero for the company. Furthermore, the pirate isn't depriving any other potential customer of the game: he has not physically removed a copy of the software from a store shelf. There's no loss of sale for the company there, either. Finally, the software company paid absolutely nothing for the packaging or manufacturing of the product. Given the nature of computer software, it was downloaded from someone else's computer; so no manufacturing was needed.
It could be argued that piracy amounts to lost sales because a pirate would be motivated to buy the software if he couldn't download it. However, given that pirates go out of their way to search the internet for pirated copies and to wait for the software to finish downloading, it's still highly unlikely that they would have ever bought the software, whatever the circumstances. Pirates don't want to go to the store, and they don't want to pay money for software. So this can't be legitimately construed as a loss of revenue.
An artist's depiction of an Extended Unit Death
Quote from 
Apos
Apos... For some reasons, your explanations seemed to be completely off... The comparisons you make are paralogismes (Couldn't find an English version.).
Quote
However, given that pirates go out of their way to search the internet for pirated copies and to wait for the software to finish downloading, it's still highly unlikely that they would have ever bought the software, whatever the circumstances. Pirates don't want to go to the store, and they don't want to pay money for software. So this can't be legitimately construed as a loss of revenue.
Learn how EUDs work: A Mapmaker's Guide for Creating EUDs
Don't like learning?: EUDGen 2
Other stuff: Farlap Bound Maker
Dash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
Jog: Original Warp
Other: Super Mario SC Fireball Guard Your Civilian Strength Contest
Don't like learning?: EUDGen 2
Other stuff: Farlap Bound Maker
Dash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X
Jog: Original Warp
Other: Super Mario SC Fireball Guard Your Civilian Strength Contest
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
Taking a game without paying for it qualifies under the definitions following from the above link:
intransitive:
1
transitive:
1a, 1b, 1c, 2b, and arguably 3a.
This delusion that piracy isn't stealing really burns me.
Taking a game without paying for it qualifies under the definitions following from the above link:
intransitive:
1
transitive:
1a, 1b, 1c, 2b, and arguably 3a.
This delusion that piracy isn't stealing really burns me.
None.
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
It doesn't fit under intransitive 1 because you aren't removing something from someone's possession.
The other ones don't apply because while you don't have the leave or permission of the company, you DO have the permission of the person you are downloading the game from. If you hacked into a game company's website or anyone's computer for that matter and copied the software that way, then it would be stealing.
The other ones don't apply because while you don't have the leave or permission of the company, you DO have the permission of the person you are downloading the game from. If you hacked into a game company's website or anyone's computer for that matter and copied the software that way, then it would be stealing.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
Cartography Artisan
Just thought i'd point out...
Shoplifting: Directly harming the store
Pirating: Harming both store and developers overall
Furthermore 0's and 1's can be easily worked into a metaphore for proccessed material like treated lumber or raw steel, they have no pratical use on their own but when rearanged by someone with knoledge they can be made into useful and valuable items just as 0's and 1's can be collaborated into a game.
Stealing...
Webster: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
Dictonary.com: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.
I see a distinction without a differance...
Addition: I have little doubt it will soon be defined as stealing in lawful lands (it isn't already? court case please!), it's mearly that it is a more recent issue, morally most pirates recognize they should not be as such; and the removal of profits is obvious - little stands in the way of it becoming law other than the nature by which it is twisted into the internet which many innapropriatly grab on to as a stage for complete freedom - anarchy is flawed by the human factor!
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 29 2011, 4:58 am by jjf28.
Shoplifting: Directly harming the store
Pirating: Harming both store and developers overall
Furthermore 0's and 1's can be easily worked into a metaphore for proccessed material like treated lumber or raw steel, they have no pratical use on their own but when rearanged by someone with knoledge they can be made into useful and valuable items just as 0's and 1's can be collaborated into a game.
Stealing...
Webster: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
Dictonary.com: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.
I see a distinction without a differance...
Addition: I have little doubt it will soon be defined as stealing in lawful lands (it isn't already? court case please!), it's mearly that it is a more recent issue, morally most pirates recognize they should not be as such; and the removal of profits is obvious - little stands in the way of it becoming law other than the nature by which it is twisted into the internet which many innapropriatly grab on to as a stage for complete freedom - anarchy is flawed by the human factor!
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 29 2011, 4:58 am by jjf28.
TheNitesWhoSay - Clan Aura - github
Reached the top of StarCraft theory crafting 2:12 AM CST, August 2nd, 2014.
Reached the top of StarCraft theory crafting 2:12 AM CST, August 2nd, 2014.
Intransitive 1 doesn't say anything about removing something from someone's possession. It isn't necessary to remove anything from someone's possession to steal from them, simply to take property into your possession.
Jack, my point is that piracy fits the definition of stealing overwhelmingly. It fits both the letter and the spirit. It's called pirating because pirates steal things. While originally this was probably a way for the media to make a big deal out of things by trying to make it more than petty theft, somehow people have come into this delusion that piracy does not involve stealing. The person(s) who own(s) the property are the only person(s) that can give rightful permission for another person to download/obtain/rightfully use their property. The actual person you download the material from is irrelevant if you don't have the owners permission.
All the definitions from the link I have posted apply.
Jack, my point is that piracy fits the definition of stealing overwhelmingly. It fits both the letter and the spirit. It's called pirating because pirates steal things. While originally this was probably a way for the media to make a big deal out of things by trying to make it more than petty theft, somehow people have come into this delusion that piracy does not involve stealing. The person(s) who own(s) the property are the only person(s) that can give rightful permission for another person to download/obtain/rightfully use their property. The actual person you download the material from is irrelevant if you don't have the owners permission.
All the definitions from the link I have posted apply.
None.
Quote from name:K_A
You are right, but there is a problem there. Certain businesses may be benefitted slightly because of piracy, but if the program is being pirated instead of buying the cheap immitation, the company that produces the cheap immitation will be losing out.
I do however think that the argument that "some companies benefit from pirating" is flawed in the sense that, although it's true, those benefited are few and far between. Windows and Photoshop are probably the best examples, and have already been mentioned.
That just shows pirating can, in some very rare instances, prove to have a positive effect for the company. It's certainly not a nearly common enough occurrence to be applied to pirating in general though.
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
Vrael,
The person who first bought the game and then torrented it or gave it to his friend or whatever OWNS his copy of the game. He is the OWNER. He then gives his permission to others to receive copies of the game. And that does not fit the definition of stealing, nor is it In the spirit of stealing. To say it is is to side with Sony against those who hacked into the PS3 to install linux, because then you're saying that something can be sold to someone without them actually owning it and without them having the right to do with it as they please.
Quote
The person(s) who own(s) the property are the only person(s) that can give rightful permission for another person to download/obtain/rightfully use their property. The actual person you download the material from is irrelevant if you don't have the owners permission.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
Quote from Jack
JackVrael,
The person who first bought the game and then torrented it or gave it to his friend or whatever OWNS his copy of the game. He is the OWNER. He then gives his permission to others to receive copies of the game. And that does not fit the definition of stealing, nor is it In the spirit of stealing. To say it is is to side with Sony against those who hacked into the PS3 to install linux, because then you're saying that something can be sold to someone without them actually owning it and without them having the right to do with it as they please.
Quote
The person(s) who own(s) the property are the only person(s) that can give rightful permission for another person to download/obtain/rightfully use their property. The actual person you download the material from is irrelevant if you don't have the owners permission.
"If a topic that clearly interest noone needs to be closed to underline the "we don't want this here" message, is up to debate."
-NudeRaider
-NudeRaider
I order you to forgive yourself!
In a lot of softwares, if you read the EULA, it usually says that you give them the rights on what you produce with their software. EULA are usually not meant to protect the user, but to protect the corporation.
Software license
Software license
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
@tikels read this http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=112611&mode=threaded
That's in the USA. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States so it depends on which court hears you. But basically if you get someone else to agree to the EULA, you may then do whatever you like with your copy; alternatively bypass the EULA. If you don't agree to the license you don't own a mere license to the game; instead you own the game itself. Now, according to current copyright and antipiracy laws, it's still illegal to distribute the game. But it shouldn't be.
That's in the USA. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States so it depends on which court hears you. But basically if you get someone else to agree to the EULA, you may then do whatever you like with your copy; alternatively bypass the EULA. If you don't agree to the license you don't own a mere license to the game; instead you own the game itself. Now, according to current copyright and antipiracy laws, it's still illegal to distribute the game. But it shouldn't be.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
Cartography Artisan
You can buy rights to distrubute the game... but for the $20 you buy it with you shouldn't get full ownership of the masterpiece they put hours upon hours into and invested lots of money in.
TheNitesWhoSay - Clan Aura - github
Reached the top of StarCraft theory crafting 2:12 AM CST, August 2nd, 2014.
Reached the top of StarCraft theory crafting 2:12 AM CST, August 2nd, 2014.
[2026-4-14. : 12:07 am]
Vrael -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: Vrael ranting still is though
you're a gentleman and a scholar, thank you[2026-4-13. : 3:31 pm]
Vrael -- it only costs 50% of my post-tax salary for life and in return I get to also become a drone whose sole purpose is CAPITALISM[2026-4-13. : 3:30 pm]
Vrael -- pssht, you're still using a phone? I just record 100% of my life using my ElonBrainChip[2026-4-13. : 2:13 pm]
NudeRaider -- bro I don't go anywhere without my phone to record anything significant[2026-4-13. : 1:28 pm]
Vrael -- ZoanZoan shouted: not if u wer there
id say even if you were there its tricky, human memory can be very faulty
Members Online: 
Moose
Moose