Pirating = Stealing
Moderator:Moderators
- blackbox_dev
- Senior Member
- Posts:1906
- Joined:Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location:Formerly known as iam7805
- Rekarp
- Portablizer Extraordinaire
- Posts:2163
- Joined:Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:52 am
- PSN Username:Lnghrn_
- Steam ID:rekarp
- Location:Austin, Tx
- Contact:
The CD not really. The Key (which is what signifies the product) is. All Windows XP discs are the same. The keys are different.Aguiluz wrote:Where do we draw the line between pirating and stealing?
What if someone has a full legal Windows XP and he lets another person to borrow it to fix his friend's PC? I think it is sharing and not mass-pirating?
I remember it. Wonderful chip music keygen. I know I recorded that tune, let's see if I can dig it up.Harshboy wrote:Fun Fact: The first pirated piece of software I have ever "owned" is Nero 6 by ORiON. My Uncle gave me it when I modded my Xbox so I could burn my games. I've given it to a few people, I think it might have been gamemasterAS's first pirated app too.
The problem is that the product is over priced. Eg, an album can be copied and transferred at almost no cost, in almost no time. I'm asking you the opposite question. Why the sense of non-entitlement? If I can't afford to buy an album/movie/game, and I can download it without hurting anyone, why shouldn't. It's a gift of technology that didn't exist 15 years ago. Not using that technology seems pretty stupid to me.bicostp wrote:I'm sorry but this unwarranted sense of entitlement is the thing about my generation that annoys me second most. (First being the collective taste in music.) If you can't afford it, either earn it or settle for something else. That spoiled "I want it so I get it" attitude is partially to blame for the failing economy; people took out loans on top of loans to afford fancy things they otherwise could not get, and quite frankly they never needed them.Harshboy wrote:Why should I not be able to have fun just because I can't afford to?
- hailrazer
- Portablizer Extraordinaire
- Posts:2764
- Joined:Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location:Georgia Sweet Georgia
That analogy only works if you were going to pay for the game in the first place.Rekarp wrote:You are taking money away from someone or some company thus stealing.
If a person was NEVER going to pay for the game, then pirating it didn't take any money from the developer.
And that is why the industry is so divided about Pirating. That's why even some developers say it doesn't matter and it helps. Not my viewpoint but I have read quotes from developers who have said that.
My Portable Systems:
-----Genimini---------Darth64---------Dreamtrooper--------Ncube---------Kamikazi64---N64Boy Advance
-----Genimini---------Darth64---------Dreamtrooper--------Ncube---------Kamikazi64---N64Boy Advance
- hailrazer
- Portablizer Extraordinaire
- Posts:2764
- Joined:Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location:Georgia Sweet Georgia
I agree 100%Rekarp wrote:So we agree that Pirating software is
1. Wrong
2. Illegal
3. Unethical
4. Douche bag move
Ok its not EXACTLY like stealing but its pretty darn close.
I agree with Bic 110%
My Portable Systems:
-----Genimini---------Darth64---------Dreamtrooper--------Ncube---------Kamikazi64---N64Boy Advance
-----Genimini---------Darth64---------Dreamtrooper--------Ncube---------Kamikazi64---N64Boy Advance
- Triton
- Moderator
- Posts:7397
- Joined:Mon May 24, 2004 12:33 pm
- 360 GamerTag:triton199
- Steam ID:triton199
- Location:Iowa
- Contact:
most CDs are under 15$ each, on amazon i have bought cds for less than 2$ each. my issue is that the vast majority of albums have only a few good songs out of the whole thing. when i can afford it i buy CDs or actual LPs of the artists i likeThe problem is that the product is over priced.
i agree with bic 100% most kids of our generation think the just automatically deserve whatever they want, i blame MTV among other things. you do NOT deserve anything. if you want it earn it.Eg, an album can be copied and transferred at almost no cost, in almost no time. I'm asking you the opposite question. Why the sense of non-entitlement? If I can't afford to buy an album/movie/game, and I can download it without hurting anyone, why shouldn't. It's a gift of technology that didn't exist 15 years ago. Not using that technology seems pretty stupid to me.
i already said that lolThat analogy only works if you were going to pay for the game in the first place.
1.matter of opinion1. Wrong
2. Illegal
3. Unethical
4. Douche bag move
2.factual
3.matter of opinion
4.emotionally charged statement
Visit us at Portablesofdoom.org
- XPCportables
- Posts:1020
- Joined:Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:27 pm
- Location:The end of time...
You have an excellent point. I do not agree with the entitlement mentality of this generation, however, when it comes to software, it's not so clean cut. Your idea makes sense in a free market system. You, the consumer finds the lowest possible sacrifice to obtain the item that they want. So logically, because pirating is not stealing, in a purely free market, it should be the ideal option. The duty of protecting data would then fall on the developers themselves. The better they protect their data the lower the chances of losing sales. But the problem here is that it IS illegal to pirate, whether it is stealing or not. Thus, for a law abiding citizen, this should not be an option. That's all right and good and moral, but not every pirated copy of something is a lost sale. Many people will pirate something that they are mildly interested in even though they would never pay for it. If a sale was never going to happen on that item, then the system is unaffected regardless of who has the data.nitro2k01 wrote:I remember it. Wonderful chip music keygen. I know I recorded that tune, let's see if I can dig it up.Harshboy wrote:Fun Fact: The first pirated piece of software I have ever "owned" is Nero 6 by ORiON. My Uncle gave me it when I modded my Xbox so I could burn my games. I've given it to a few people, I think it might have been gamemasterAS's first pirated app too.
The problem is that the product is over priced. Eg, an album can be copied and transferred at almost no cost, in almost no time. I'm asking you the opposite question. Why the sense of non-entitlement? If I can't afford to buy an album/movie/game, and I can download it without hurting anyone, why shouldn't. It's a gift of technology that didn't exist 15 years ago. Not using that technology seems pretty stupid to me.bicostp wrote:I'm sorry but this unwarranted sense of entitlement is the thing about my generation that annoys me second most. (First being the collective taste in music.) If you can't afford it, either earn it or settle for something else. That spoiled "I want it so I get it" attitude is partially to blame for the failing economy; people took out loans on top of loans to afford fancy things they otherwise could not get, and quite frankly they never needed them.Harshboy wrote:Why should I not be able to have fun just because I can't afford to?
Another question that must be raised is the true definition of piracy when applied to software. If piracy is the possession of data by an individual that has not paid the original creator then shouldn't borrowing a game or movie from a friend, renting from a video store, and buying used all be classified as piracy. This is especially true if you want to look at it from the perspective of the data being an experience not an object. If you rent a movie from the video store, you are paying a third party, and not the studio, so that you can receive the experience of watching a movie, once you have seen it, you are not obligated to buy it, even though you have "pirated" the experience of watching the movie. The only difference between renting and borrowing from what we consider pirating, is that you do not continuously posses the data, but if you have taken the experience already, shouldn't possession of the data be irrelevant? This becomes especially complicated when we speak about used game or movie stores. When a person sells a game, it is clear that in their mind, the experience of continuing to posses that data was lower than the value that has been offered to them for the sale. This means that the original and legitimate owner no longer values the experience because they have gotten their money's worth out of it, but you, the eager customer ready to snag a deal will never pay the creator for their work. you have to be stealing though, because you are "possessing data that is not yours." So who are you stealing from? Your clearly not stealing from the original owner, because he no longer values the experience, but your not stealing from the developer either, because they have gotten all of the potential money for that copy of the game from the original buyer. But you are getting to have the experience without paying the creator.
- Triton
- Moderator
- Posts:7397
- Joined:Mon May 24, 2004 12:33 pm
- 360 GamerTag:triton199
- Steam ID:triton199
- Location:Iowa
- Contact:
QTFYou have an excellent point. I do not agree with the entitlement mentality of this generation, however, when it comes to software, it's not so clean cut. Your idea makes sense in a free market system. You, the consumer finds the lowest possible sacrifice to obtain the item that they want. So logically, because pirating is not stealing, in a purely free market, it should be the ideal option. The duty of protecting data would then fall on the developers themselves. The better they protect their data the lower the chances of losing sales. But the problem here is that it IS illegal to pirate, whether it is stealing or not. Thus, for a law abiding citizen, this should not be an option. That's all right and good and moral, but not every pirated copy of something is a lost sale. Many people will pirate something that they are mildly interested in even though they would never pay for it. If a sale was never going to happen on that item, then the system is unaffected regardless of who has the data.
Another question that must be raised is the true definition of piracy when applied to software. If piracy is the possession of data by an individual that has not paid the original creator then shouldn't borrowing a game or movie from a friend, renting from a video store, and buying used all be classified as piracy. This is especially true if you want to look at it from the perspective of the data being an experience not an object. If you rent a movie from the video store, you are paying a third party, and not the studio, so that you can receive the experience of watching a movie, once you have seen it, you are not obligated to buy it, even though you have "pirated" the experience of watching the movie. The only difference between renting and borrowing from what we consider pirating, is that you do not continuously posses the data, but if you have taken the experience already, shouldn't possession of the data be irrelevant? This becomes especially complicated when we speak about used game or movie stores. When a person sells a game, it is clear that in their mind, the experience of continuing to posses that data was lower than the value that has been offered to them for the sale. This means that the original and legitimate owner no longer values the experience because they have gotten their money's worth out of it, but you, the eager customer ready to snag a deal will never pay the creator for their work. you have to be stealing though, because you are "possessing data that is not yours." So who are you stealing from? Your clearly not stealing from the original owner, because he no longer values the experience, but your not stealing from the developer either, because they have gotten all of the potential money for that copy of the game from the original buyer. But you are getting to have the experience without paying the creator.
Visit us at Portablesofdoom.org
- CronoTriggerfan
- Moderator
- Posts:4131
- Joined:Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:07 pm
- Location:University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
- Contact:
nitro2k01 wrote:I'm sorry but this unwarranted sense of entitlement is the thing about my generation that annoys me second most. (First being the collective taste in music.) If you can't afford it, either earn it or settle for something else. That spoiled "I want it so I get it" attitude is partially to blame for the failing economy; people took out loans on top of loans to afford fancy things they otherwise could not get, and quite frankly they never needed them.
[/quote]You're kidding, right? You can justify getting something for nothing? All logic and law aside, that's just morally perverse. I can understand doing it and fully accepting what you do, but trying to justify it because of technological advancement is pretty vapid, IMO.The problem is that the product is over priced. Eg, an album can be copied and transferred at almost no cost, in almost no time. I'm asking you the opposite question. Why the sense of non-entitlement? If I can't afford to buy an album/movie/game, and I can download it without hurting anyone, why shouldn't. It's a gift of technology that didn't exist 15 years ago. Not using that technology seems pretty stupid to me.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts:2151
- Joined:Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:43 pm
- PSN Username:Geekystig790
- 360 GamerTag:Mesu Gitsune
- Location:Fairborn, Ohio
Hmmm very interesting.
What about, if you went out an bought a movie/music/game new and Rip it, then when you need money, sell it for a fraction of what you paid for it but keep the ripped ROM/ISO/MP3s?
Illegal, mostly because when using circumventing devices on game systems, those are illegal, and software use to break through any Copy Protection.
But Everyone wins here, you get a little bit of money, and keep a copy what you paid full price for.
-You bought it new full price, money goes to support whoever created the product.
-You back it up to your computer, and use certain software to burn another copy or etc.
-You sell it for a fraction of the retail price.
-Whoever bought it can resell it, or keep it.
The only thing that is lost is when someone buys something used (takes away a sale from someone buying it new.), but used movie, games, and music places are legal.
What about, if you went out an bought a movie/music/game new and Rip it, then when you need money, sell it for a fraction of what you paid for it but keep the ripped ROM/ISO/MP3s?
Illegal, mostly because when using circumventing devices on game systems, those are illegal, and software use to break through any Copy Protection.
But Everyone wins here, you get a little bit of money, and keep a copy what you paid full price for.
-You bought it new full price, money goes to support whoever created the product.
-You back it up to your computer, and use certain software to burn another copy or etc.
-You sell it for a fraction of the retail price.
-Whoever bought it can resell it, or keep it.
The only thing that is lost is when someone buys something used (takes away a sale from someone buying it new.), but used movie, games, and music places are legal.
- Rekarp
- Portablizer Extraordinaire
- Posts:2163
- Joined:Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:52 am
- PSN Username:Lnghrn_
- Steam ID:rekarp
- Location:Austin, Tx
- Contact:
That is just straight up unethical.Jongamer wrote:Hmmm very interesting.
What about, if you went out an bought a movie/music/game new and Rip it, then when you need money, sell it for a fraction of what you paid for it but keep the ripped ROM/ISO/MP3s?
Illegal, mostly because when using circumventing devices on game systems, those are illegal, and software use to break through any Copy Protection.
But Everyone wins here, you get a little bit of money, and keep a copy what you paid full price for.
-You bought it new full price, money goes to support whoever created the product.
-You back it up to your computer, and use certain software to burn another copy or etc.
-You sell it for a fraction of the retail price.
-Whoever bought it can resell it, or keep it.
The only thing that is lost is when someone buys something used (takes away a sale from someone buying it new.), but used movie, games, and music places are legal.
- Ben Cebhrem
- Posts:302
- Joined:Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:00 am
I agree with Rekarp; keeping a backup and selling the original media, no matter what the form of information comes on, and keeping the backup is unethical.
But XPCportables brings up the biggest point here, I think: we are in an ethical and moral quandary due to the proliferation of a technology that makes information piracy widely available to the masses. What we as a society must do is to come up with a more (that is, a social "law") free of corporation/legal influence. If it becomes neccesary, then you enforce the more through law.
This is how many of our laws become laws by the way. Society deem murder as a bad thing, to be avoided whenever possible; therefore at some point, it also became illegal. It's by no coincidence that laws happen to follow a country's social code.
As to my own opinion about the whole thing, yeah, piracy is wrong. Is it justifiable? Well, yes, and no. Mainly it depends on the person and the situation. But then again we come around full tilt as to what is "allowable" and what isn't. Perhaps there may be a middle ground at some point- certain forms are acceptable, certain forms are not. Doesn't matter to me, I keep on living all the same.
But XPCportables brings up the biggest point here, I think: we are in an ethical and moral quandary due to the proliferation of a technology that makes information piracy widely available to the masses. What we as a society must do is to come up with a more (that is, a social "law") free of corporation/legal influence. If it becomes neccesary, then you enforce the more through law.
This is how many of our laws become laws by the way. Society deem murder as a bad thing, to be avoided whenever possible; therefore at some point, it also became illegal. It's by no coincidence that laws happen to follow a country's social code.
As to my own opinion about the whole thing, yeah, piracy is wrong. Is it justifiable? Well, yes, and no. Mainly it depends on the person and the situation. But then again we come around full tilt as to what is "allowable" and what isn't. Perhaps there may be a middle ground at some point- certain forms are acceptable, certain forms are not. Doesn't matter to me, I keep on living all the same.