Pirating = Stealing

[Negative_Creep]

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

You've all pirated SOMETHING, say you haven't, and your a liar.

[APHawkes]

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?

[Negative_Creep]

People will continue to pirate anyway.

[Valium]

Pirating is a fast, simple, and very available way to get everything you want. No one's going to stop doing it once they start.

[Harshboy]

I think it's a given that Piracy is wrong.

Even I of all people know that Piracy is wrong, unethical, and just downright lame, but in the end it comes down to either me or someone else benefiting. It's just illogical to me to try and help someone else out when I can help myself out. Maybe if games didn't cost $60 each I would consider buying a lot of my pirated software but until then I just don't see it happening.

There is no reason why a program like Final Cut Studio should cost $1300. The only reason it costs that much is because the most likely people buying it are rich Hollywood movie producers. WTF is someone like me who wants to get his feet wet in the movie editing area when something costs something so ridiculous.

I'm a selfish jackass and I'm aware of it. At least I am aware unlike some others out there.

[Sun-Wukong]

If it weren't for pirating games, Sega would probably still be a major company. It's what killed the Dreamcast.

[Negative_Creep]

If it weren't for pirating games, Sega would probably still be a major company. It's what killed the Dreamcast.

Playstation 2 killed the Dreamcast. In 1999-2003, games weren't so easily copyable for the Dreamcast.

[nitro2k01]

I think it's a given that Piracy is wrong.

Even I of all people know that Piracy is wrong, unethical, and just downright lame, but in the end it comes down to either me or someone else benefiting. It's just illogical to me to try and help someone else out when I can help myself out. Maybe if games didn't cost $60 each I would consider buying a lot of my pirated software but until then I just don't see it happening.

There is no reason why a program like Final Cut Studio should cost $1300. The only reason it costs that much is because the most likely people buying it are rich Hollywood movie producers. WTF is someone like me who wants to get his feet wet in the movie editing area when something costs something so ridiculous.

I'm a selfish jackass and I'm aware of it. At least I am aware unlike some others out there.

And what you're nailing here is that not every download is a lost sale.

[bacteria]

Indeed, it was ironic that companies made cassette recorders with twin decks and vinyl record and cassette decks with the purpose of allowing people to copy onto blank cassettes; and then they moan when people do it! Same with CD writers, DVD writers, etc.

Obviously, the companies that sell music and sell, should we call it, "piracy hardware", are not the same.

Ummm Sony ??

Absolutely. Sony for one.


BTW - before getting on your high horse Rekarp, and others; consider that it is impossible to not infringe copyright or to have paid royalties to someone in a modern life.

Ever sung someone "Happy Birthday" or hummed a tune or sang along to a piece of music you have, played a film you hired to others (friends, family, etc), quoted (verbally or in writing) anything written from something in written form (including at school for essays, etc), or listened to music in your family car when parents have been driving, or listening to their music in the house, or bought something from a yard sale or e-bay, or kept a recording of a television program for more than 28 days, or talked about something you read or on the news or program?

ALL THE ABOVE BREACH COPYRIGHT and/or "deprive" someone of royalty payments.

Of course you have! (unless you live in a cave as a hermit, but if you did, you wouldn't be on-line!). In which case, get off your ivory tower and accept that there are different levels of copyright infringements from the "that's unavoidable to live these days" > "blatantly illegal" - ie copying new stuff and selling it is bad and the real issue.

I often report to e-bay people who sell or try to sell game ROMS and emulators or pirated music or whatever; or illegal weapons - in fact, e-bay raised my status a few months ago so my reporting gets faster action on those I report. I hate these types of pirates so I report them.

[Joes2Silly]

I actually just pirate games from old systems, so It's more like I'm stealing from the American consumer, not the game developers. Sorry generic American consumers, I'll keeps seeding for you!

[Sparkfist]

Ok people, I'm going to agree that for the most part, that 99.9% piracy is wrong. In that yes it is morally and ethically wrong, but for 90% of the people that pirate they never intened to buy and so are not hurting said companies as much as they claim.

However I'd like to bring up a good example and ask if it's truly wrong, or could be understood and possibly accepted.

A company is setting up their computers. They just bought a new computer, and it needs Microsoft Office. Instead of going back to the store and spending $100 for Office they use a legally bought copy, already installed on on of their computers. They use the same key. Are they in the right or wrong?

And I want you to keep in mind that they didn't try to hide the fact they used the same Office suite, they didn't break any encryption, make any copies of the disc, and bottom line they needed it on the computer.

Again 99.9% of the time piracy is wrong, morally and ethically.

Or here's another question. Is it hurting the company of me to go to Block Buster and rent a movie, watch it, and if I like it make a copy? Really no, the makers of the movie made their money when BB bought the copy, BB is making money renting that copy out to me, and I really had no intent to buy the movie only watch it. So is it really wrong, am I hurting anyone by doing this, besides my moral well being? Simple answer, no.

The problem is that companies right now are using an old system of selling people a media with the information on it. The problem is that the means they use to store the information can now be accessed and duplicated easily by consumers. So rather then chance strategies and use the new means of distributing the information they throw a band-aid on it called DRM.

If companies want to chance the way things are they start working on offering products i a media that can be used to minimize cost, and stimulate sales. Rather then fighting the change.

Am I wrong?

[Ben Cebhrem]

Ok people, I'm going to agree that for the most part, that 99.9% piracy is wrong. In that yes it is morally and ethically wrong, but for 90% of the people that pirate they never intened to buy and so are not hurting said companies as much as they claim.

However I'd like to bring up a good example and ask if it's truly wrong, or could be understood and possibly accepted.

1.A company is setting up their computers. They just bought a new computer, and it needs Microsoft Office. Instead of going back to the store and spending $100 for Office they use a legally bought copy, already installed on on of their computers. They use the same key. Are they in the right or wrong?

And I want you to keep in mind that they didn't try to hide the fact they used the same Office suite, they didn't break any encryption, make any copies of the disc, and bottom line they needed it on the computer.

Again 99.9% of the time piracy is wrong, morally and ethically.

2.Or here's another question. Is it hurting the company of me to go to Block Buster and rent a movie, watch it, and if I like it make a copy? Really no, the makers of the movie made their money when BB bought the copy, BB is making money renting that copy out to me, and I really had no intent to buy the movie only watch it. So is it really wrong, am I hurting anyone by doing this, besides my moral well being? Simple answer, no.

3.The problem is that companies right now are using an old system of selling people a media with the information on it. The problem is that the means they use to store the information can now be accessed and duplicated easily by consumers. So rather then chance strategies and use the new means of distributing the information they throw a band-aid on it called DRM.

If companies want to chance the way things are they start working on offering products i a media that can be used to minimize cost, and stimulate sales. Rather then fighting the change.

Am I wrong?

1. Are they planning on getting another copy soon, in order to remedy the shortcoming (though I wonder why they don't have a business copy, but that's something I think we can safely ignore for now). I think most people would view that as an acceptable compromise *if* the company is going to go about it legally in short time.

2. Yes, that's illegal. Same as downloading the movie, or buying it, copying it, and then selling it off while keeping the backup. It may not be hurting Blockbuster if you do that, but it is an instance where it is a lost sale.

3. I couldn't agree more. While I dislike Steam, I can see the virtues of it as well in an open market. It should help keep piracy at bay, and that's a good thing. But then again, you can't help but look at companies such as Sony, and wonder if they can see the forest for the trees. (Sorry Sony fans, they are quite restrictive in their DRM, and they often get a good beating for it, yet continue to use it all the same; they are an example people can relate to)

[Kurt_]

I actually just pirate games from old systems, so It's more like I'm stealing from the American consumer, not the game developers.

Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better!

[XPCportables]

The real question is, what constitutes piracy. If piracy is truly engaging in an experience without paying the original creator, and movie rentals are not pirating, then is it a matter of time? How long do you have to hold the data before you have pirated it? When you purchase a game or movie, what are you actually purchasing? The data, or the right to experience the data for as long as you live? It seems that this should be true, because data is not an object but simply a means to creating an experience, then you should have the right to replicate the data in as many ways as you like, and obtain it through any channels and medium that you wish at any time. If you lose or break a dvd you should be able to legally obtain the data by any means that you wish. You own the right to it right? Well apparently not. So what are you purchasing, if anything, when you buy a game or movie? If you are in fact buying the disc, then rentals should definitely be illegal because you are obtaining the disc, no matter for how long, without paying the creator. You could theoretically rent a movie continuously for the rest of your life, and never have paid the creator. The only person who has paid the creator is the video store, and they have made their money back thousands of times by this point.
Another thing I would like to point out is this http://www.popgive.com/2008/10/homemade ... plica.html This man toiled in his basement with his spare time for ten years building this exact replica of a Lamborghini Countach to perfect dimensions. This is a physically flawless replica, and he built it using publicly available data from another Countach. Has he not pirated his Countach? It is a perfect replica of one, but Lamborghini never got any money from it. He still gets the experience of driving the car. You see, you all make it sound like pirating is just pop a disc in and your done. It is in fact, a very involved process. money is spent on the computer, the internet service, and the man hours involved in creating the cracks and writing the decrypting software. Then on the downloading side there is another computer to be paid for, internet service, dvd burning software, man hours searching for the files, download hours, disc burning hours. While it is entirely wrong to sell pirated software, I can't say that it is any more wrong to download software for personal use than it is for Ken Imhoff to build his Countach for personal use. Data is not an object, data is a set of specs that can be interpreted into some sort of experience. Like Ken used a real Countach that someone else legitimately purchased as the spec for his Countach. The same goes for anything pirated, the poster of the pirated data had to obtain it legally. Once a spec hits the public, it can and will be replicated by the public. When you download a movie, little objects don't come through the internet and plunk down into you computer. You aren't really downloading anything but the specifications to build the file, your computer still has to precess and rebuild the data in your hdd. You didn't get the file spat out at you have to work for it.

Ken couldn't afford a Lambo, so he built one using his own time and labor, rather than having Lamborghini build it and mark up the price to astronomical proportions. The same can be said for pirates, rather than pay the ridiculous price for software, they use their own tools, time, and the available specifications to build their own replica of the software. Selling these replicas however is blatantly wrong. If you have the skill and tools to replicate something for personal use, then I can't say that you shouldn't be able to.

[hailrazer]

@XPCportables.

While an interesting theory , your example is flawed.

If you used tools to actually develop a game that was the exact same as say Quake 3 , then your analogy would work.