Long before the internet even existed people lend books, cassettes and whatnot to each other. Never killed the bookindustry or musiclabels.
Nowadays it is no sharing cause it hurts our sales.
Trollolol rootkit cause we don't trust you.
Trollolol register and accept terms of agreement which state that you own nothing or you can't play.
Soon every copy comes with a cop holding you a gun to the head incase you overstep the everchanging terms of agreement.
Piracy is free from all of that and they wonder why people pirate. Oh and btw: This is not stealing its fucking copying. If it would be stealing I could download a game 2million times and stop them from selling their game which is obviously not the case. Personally i don't pirate as I turned to old for that and simply don't buy but i fully understand the kids who do. Especially if they lack the money to buy anyway it is not lost sales. Fail companys like to blame their failures on piracy cause it makes them look better than they are.
I can agree with the banning peoples ip idea. Excellent idea actually but its hardly ever done. If they do ban, they ban that email address and name, and there's nothing stopping the person from just creating a new one. And its about more than modding. Its about griefing, harassment, and more. Its not that hard to prove, and there needs to be more moderating of things like live chat channels in online games.
The devs need to start doing whats needed instead of worrying about money.
ipconfig /release
ipconfig /renew
This doesn't work due to the majority of people not having static addresses, and banning in blocks would cause other users to be banned as well. That's why it's not done.
Wrong. And why is it wrong?
Yes, you can force an address change. It is not easy and you need to know what you're doing. /release /renew will NOT change your ip address. Why? Because your ip address is assigned by your internet provider, NOT by your computer system. Yes, its dynamic. That means your PROVIDER has a rotating system. Comcasts WAS set 3 months rotation when I worked for them. That means that once you /release /renew, you will most likely get the same address back.
How do I know that particular tidbit? Because it happened to me. Someone with the ip address I just changed to tried to hack into the EQ2 network when I played and I suddenly lost access when my ip address switched. I had to call my ip and SOE to get it reactivated so I could play. I was incredibly aggravated when that happened and quite ticked when I talked to them on the phone because I had done nothing wrong.
BUT... I am a full supporter of ip banning. Once I found out what happened, I totally understood why they did it. Only a child wouldn't.
Sorry to hear that. My DSL doesn't share your issue or your neighborhood's bandwidth though =D
That was a few years back. Still remains though... your provider sets your ip address, NOT your computer system.
Not entirely true. Some ISP's (mine included) have multiple gateways AND allow force assigns, So pick a gateway and your IP on that block. If it's not currently being used it's yours. Just a manual version of release/renew. Even some cable providers such as mediacom are like this. Though Comcast tried to be the first with the fastest speeds and failed at that, I've never heard much good from them.
Yup....and in point of fact, you can even choose which IP address if you really know what you are doing and/or get lucky.
Because of the nature of DHCP clients can make a request for a specific address and the DHCP will honor it if that address is not already taken.
That's the default behavior for renewing a lease which has expired.....
Your computer had x.x.x.27, it's lease expires, it asks the DHCP server for address x.x.x.27, if the server has that address available it'll grant it to you.
Here is the thing, it's the client that determines what address to request and under what conditions. A default windows DHCP client only will request a specific IP address if it had an existing lease for that address...but there is nothing to stop a hacker from installing thier own DHCP client to which they could have added the functionality that allows them to specify the address they want to request whenever they want.
Heck if you really want to be crude you could just manualy bind an IP address to your NIC from within the range that you know your ISP draws from....if that address isn't already taken by someone (and it's not uncommon for an ISP to hold a few back from it's DHCP pools)....it'll actualy work...unless the ISP takes special measures to prevent that....which most don't.
LOL. Really? Lets talk about morality. I come to your house, and take your TV and bed. Thats not wrong, right?
The difference here is that I lost money by you taking those things. Did the developer lose money by me pirating a game that I would not have bought? If so how? Is the developer losing money by me pirating a game that I end up liking and buying a legit copy of? Your comparisons just do not work.
Heres the question, are you not buying it because you don't want to play it, or are you not buying it because you can get it for free? Does the developer lose money by you pirating a game? Yes. Just because you go out and buy a copy later, doesn't mean you aren't taking something in the first place that wasn't freely given. Most games have trials now, did you try looking for a legitimate piece of the game before going directly to the decidedly illegal and questionable sites to download full version sufficiently utilizing cracks to play it?
If you are playing a game you haven't paid for, its not a trial provided by the company, or demo, then you are stealing. Simple as that. Is stealing wrong? Is it wrong because the bible says its wrong? (I'm not religious so this doesn't affect me, and if I was religious I wouldn't be christian.) Is it wrong because it is illegal? Well, in a societal view, yes, that would be one reason why it would be deemed as "wrong". Is it "wrong" because it creates a problem for *me*? It doesn't create a problem for me at this time, but I'm not self absorbed.
So why is it wrong? If you had children would you not let them borrow a game from a friend? If one child got a game for his birthday would you not let his brothers or sisters play it because that would be stealing? Would you teach them that that is wrong? That sharing is not caring? Im just curious. Would you call your wife / husband/ life partner/ whatever a thief if they borrowed a DVD from a friend? Who deems these things wrong?
I think its simple to decipher why its wrong. This isn't a DVD from a friend, this is a completely stand alone title from a group of anonymous donors, most of which never purchased the DVD in the first place. Stealing a DvD from someone and letting your friend borrow it doesn't make it somehow better. You aren't sharing, you aren't letting someone borrow something. You are copying property directly from the source, modifying it so you don't need the source material, and giving it away for free in the case of games, circumventing protections to ensure no payment is necessary.
Its like if someone saw an amazing photograph that took a lot of time and effort to find the right spot... to wait for the right moment, to, to capture what you wanted to capture, it had your heart and soul in it. Something one of a kind you wanted to sell exclusively, but instead someone took a picture of your picture, and just handed them out for free. Is it moral to take something that isn't yours and share it? Who says it isn't moral? The people getting screwed over no doubt, but in any sense, you could easily be that person in a situation where you find something that isn't always necessarily illegal being immoral.
Just because something doesn't bother me or have an effect on me, doesn't mean I can't see that it really will have an effect on others.
How does my pirating a game that I would not have bought anyways effect anyone but me? Yes, I got something for free. Thats it. The developer lost nothing because there was no money they were going to receive. Who just got hurt? If I like it and buy it how did that have anything but a positive effect on the people involved?
They were going to receive money, simply because if you couldn't download anything your only CHOICE would be to buy it. Thats as much of a selling point as any, that you only have the choice to buy it, or not buy it. If you couldn't get it for free, then you wouldn't play it. How is that smart, to say "Well if I can't get it for free, I just wouldn't get it" well thats the point isn't it. If I can't get a porsche for free, porsche wouldn't get my business anyways, so stealing them off the lot is okay, and it doesn't hurt anyone because its coming off the lot, and not from a specific person, right? Because I wasn't going to spend money on a Porsche, its okay to take it, because they weren't getting my money anyways? And if I like that porsche and decide I want to buy it? That makes it okay? So stealing something until you have the chance to buy it is moral AND fiscally responsible? This is the stance we're taking here?
The real myth here is that piracy is OKAY and that nobody is hurt by it. That is easily proven wrong. If you cannot play a game because you haven't bought it, but you want to play it, the only choice you have is to buy it. If you couldn't steal a game, you would have to buy it if you wanted to play it - is essentially the point here. Is this something you can disagree with?
Well no buying the game would not be the only option. I could rent it, or borrow it. I could play it at a friends house. Only one of those three options requires me to hand over any kind of money.
And yet, your option of stealing it is the one you choose, because its easier. You could play a demo, you could rent it at a store that has rights to the content in a sharing capacity, or you could play with others, bu you choose to steal it where you have no due date on returning it, you have no duplication of property like a download, and you have only a small time frame to play it with someone else. When you rent, play at a friends house, or borrow from a friend, you aren't keeping, you are playing the exact game as it was meant to be played, you aren't using cracks or hacks to make sure the companies protection stops you from playing. When you pirate, you are stealing.
Its a simple enough statement. Now, blurring the lines (well THIS developer has 1 game out, and someone who steals 10 games it really only costs the developer 1 purchase) or (they spend so much on protection that people just crack so they really are costing themselves money and its their own fault). Its all a fallacy.
Honestly I havent debated this issue yet. It is a slightly different issue. On one hand the point about it only costing the developer 1 game is accurate. It usually doesn't even cost them that because people have to get a legit copy to crack it. So did the developer really lose? They gained one sale. Now on your side of it they sold one game at the expense of 10. Are you sure those 10 games the guy ripped actually stopped the sale of 10 legit games?
Not my argument totally, just some others mentioned along the way in the thread, and theres too much debate going on to focus on these in particular.
Taking something that is not yours is wrong. If you don't agree, you can easily publicly post your address anywhere, with a notice: "Stealing from me is OK" and see how long you keep your stuff, and how "not wrong" it feels. Just because you are an individual and they are a company means nothing.
Once again we go back to the top of this post for that answer. It is two totally different situations. You can't just lump everything in to the "stealing is bad" catagory because I still don't see how anyone is losing anything. Just to recap...
I dont have money or I am not going to buy the game anyways and I pirate it..who loses? The developer is not going to get my money anyways. The only thing that happens is that I get something for free. You are not effected. The developer is not effected and yet this is still stealing to you even though no one loses anything. How can I steal something if no one loses anything?
Is it just theft because I got it for free and you paid?
You don't have money, or will not buy the game right? But you don't have to buy it because its free on the internet. Right? The company loses, but you win. You get the game, even though the company doesn't get the money for the game.
Even if you play the game and decide you like it 3 months later and buy it, the company loses, you just bought a 3 month old game with a price reduction. You benefit at the cost of the game company, the retailers, and so on. Just because you weren't going to buy it doesn't mean you can steal it.
*I'm not going to buy batman arkham city, so I'm going to steal it. I have the money to buy it, but I choose not to. Is the company losing money? Who is losing something? I get a game for free. I have money to spend, but I don't want to buy Arkham City. Hell, I don't want to buy anything ever. Who wants to spend money on shit when they don't have to? So if I can get it for free online, then it doesn't matter if I like it, don't like it, think its worth the money or not, its free, and thats all that matters, and the best part is -- nobody loses!*
Humorously enough, the only way the gaming industry has lost revenue from me (other than by making some truly shitty games), is by adding incredibly draconian DRM measures that really only inconvenience the legitimate game buyers. UBIsoft I'm looking right at you.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I did answer your question, you just don't like the answer. or perhaps you don't like how I answered it? 'll give you that.
But I can't answer any other way.
I offer a product or service and charge what I feel like. you can either accept my offer or say no. Just because you don't like my offer doesnt' mean you can go behind my back and somehow acquire my product or service in a way that you prefer. You can come back with a counter offer but in this case, most game companies don't barter.
It's wrong because our society says it's wrong to acquire a good or service without maknig some sort of trade that is considered fair between both parties.
I do believe there are even mentions in the bible about "giving to ceasar what is ceasar's (of course that is talking about taxes). I imagine there is mention in other faiths as well.
The other alternative is to take it by force. We are trying, as a society, to get beyond that.
Things go to court because of grey areas.
Things that haven't been discussed before and seem like they should be one thing but perhaps they could be antoher thing when seen under a different light. This goes to your question..
So if you loan your friend a dvd then that isnt' a big deal. You know that friend and you own the dvd and have established a relationship with him/her. You have the right under fair use to use your product in this manner.
The cut and dried part is that the company didn't sell you a product so you could release it for free to thousands upon thousands of people.
they sold you a product to use in your daily life.
Not to release to the world for free.
Ok so if I buy a DVD and have a party and 50 people show up and watch it is that stealing? Is it only stealing if I dont really know them? The next day I loan that DVD to a friend and he has a party with 50 people that I don't know at all. Are we stealing yet? Thats 50 people that I dont know for sure that saw my DVD. A DVD that they didn't pay for. Is it just the amount of people that makes it stealing? Does it have to be thousands? Is there a limit there? What if one of these 50 people liked it so much they bought it?
Here are some quotes you can look them up if you like...
Jeff Raikes, a Microsoft executive, stated that "If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." He also added [8] that "We understand that in the long run the fundamental asset is the installed base of people who are using our products. What you hope to do over time is convert them to licensing the software." In a different case, Microsoft has admitted that piracy of its Windows operating system has helped give it huge market share in China that will boost its revenues when these users "go legit." Bill Gates said, "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."[9] He has also said in reference to China:
As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade
So if you look at it from their POV it has helped them not hurt them..but what does Microsoft know? The area is not as black and white as you would like it to be. Well not for everyone.
It's interesting you post the part I highlighted in Yellow because i was thinking of that on my way home.
And that's where the "cut and dried part" falls apart I suppose.
And here's why.
You are sold an item to use for private use. They expect you are going view a movie or perhaps listent to a cd with friends.
Now, if you watch a movie with 50 family members then that's certainly prviate use. If you invite the town to a showing at the town hall then that's considered something else. Any town hall that is showing a movie has to get the permission to do so.
And that's where the lawyers come in I suppose.
I would certianly think that loaning something to someone for a family gathering of 50 people wouldn't be so big a deal but where is the line. I can certainly recognize that one exists. But it's not really quantified.
Where I adhere more to the "cut and dried" part is that you purchase a game, movie, cd and I imagine there is a terms of use for it.
You agree to those terms or you don't.
In a perfect world we would be more respectful of each other and not try to screw each other over but this isn't a perfect world.
So if I loan a friend that movie to be viewed by 50 family members then that really does't feel so wrong. If I am loaning it to 50 people I don't know every single day then at some point very soon I know that I've gone too far.
But that line is there. So I suppose that is where the lawyers come in.
However, part of that is intent. Me sharing a game or movie with 50 family memebers to view or play at a special event or me giving it to a friend to do the same feels very different than me putting it out there so that thousands and thousands of people don't have to pay for it.
Which then goes back to the terms of the product.
As far as your last part, all I have to say is "good for them". It's their product and they can do with it what they will. If they would prefer people to pirate from them then that's their choice. But other companies might not feel the same and that's their right.
If a company says "You can only play this once and then return it and you have to pay heavily for that privilege" and those are the terms they have made. You then decide whether it's worth it.
If a company says you don't have to pay up front but can donate using paypal then that's their decision. That decision doesn't invalidate another company's desire to charge a specific fee.
And in the end we aren't talking about loaning your game or movie or cd to your family or your friends' family. We are talking about giving it to thousands and thousands upon thousands of people so they don't have to pay for it.
It's not stealing because to steal you have to take something from someone so they no longer have it. It is however acquiring something illegally. At least as much as their terms of use outlines.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
but i fully understand the kids who do. Especially if they lack the money to buy anyway it is not lost sales.
No worries sonny, if you lack the money just steal it...
copy
fucking hypocrites, if you were arround when cassetes were mainstream and recorded a song you essentially did the same.
Of course this is true in a sense, but in another sense, the situation has changed. While I could certainly copy a tape and give it to a friend (I had tons of tapes from recording favorite songs on the radio to recording TV shows and movies), I could not easily distribute the copies worldwide and for free. Now if I choose to I can share music and movies with the entire internet using planet. The technology has changed, therefore the amount of potential damage to the owner of the work has changed.
As I said already, I couldn't care less about stealing from a bunch of corporate thieves, and I couldn't care less what our legal system happens to say on any matter, except to make sure I know which side of the law my actions happen to be on in order to take evasive action should that prove necessary. But that doesn't change the facts of the matter.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Oh look, we're still going on with the "copying is stealing" argument.
Stealing is stealing, copying is not. You can't exactly steal a digital item like a video game since you aren't depriving the original owners of it.
That's why these "you wouldn't steal a handbag" things are so ridiculous as comparisons, when you steal a handbag you are taking an actual physical handbag that the owner aren't getting back. (Assuming that you never get caught with it.)
And no, taking a picture of a picture is not stealing a picture either, there'd be a whole lot of "stolen" mona lisa images on mugs, paper and all kinds of apparel out there otherwise, hell any image search on google would be stealing then..
Oh look, we're still going on with the "copying is stealing" argument.
Stealing is stealing, copying is not. You can't exactly steal a digital item like a video game since you aren't depriving the original owners of it.
That's why these "you wouldn't steal a handbag" things are so rificilous as comparisons, when you steal a handbag you are taking an actual physical handbag that the owner aren't getting back. (Assuming that you never get caught with it.)
And no, taking a picture of a picture is not stealing a picture either, there'd be a whole lot of "stolen" mona lisa images on mugs, paper and all kinds of apparel out there otherwise, hell any image search on google would be stealing then..
I see it differently. I'm a writer. If I was actually a good enough writer to sell a novel and the first person to buy it then somehow managed to make a few million copies of it and give it away for free to people who would otherwise have bought it, well, I wouldn't be too upset because publishing companies tend to rip off writers horrendously, but I'd be a little upset, because there would go my weekly snack and soda money worth of royalties.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
As a published game dev, let me say to the people above that think piracy hurts devs and sales: YOU'RE WRONG. You've been bamboozled and frankly you must be tad bit gullible.
All data shows that piracy in fact increases the demand in dollars for a game. A game that is not pirated early is a game likely to fail and not make its development costs back.
Think of pirating as free advertising, or customer driven advertising.
Most so called pirates are as describe by many above; users who download the content, look at it for an extremely short time (an hour or two) then decide if it warrants keeping on a hard drive or if its worth the purchase price. This in no way can have anything but a positive effect on sales.
Sales numbers that come out after a patched pirated release show clearly that when the pirating community breaths fresh interest into a product it translates into real-world sales.
This argument goes on inside dev studios also keep in mind with people on both sides of the argument. It generally boils down like this: Producers and marketing think pirating is wrong and they can get more money from investors if they "protect" their investment. The entire rest of the dev teams believe the opposite, that the sooner the product is leaked the better it will be for everyone involved. In fact most leaks come from within.
Do people believe hackers are breaching company security or private networks to gain early access to code so that they can release the cracked version before or at the same time as the boxed copy? The notion is ludicrous.
Devs want their products to be pirated, the more copies of their game floating around the more likely that the gaming community is likely to spend money and even save money to buy their next game.
To many crappy games out there for me to spend my every last dollar on... games like Game of Thrones, a company living on the hype of the books/show. They will have me to pay them $40 for that steamin pile of crap. I will just download it for free, save me time and money. The only way I buy a game is if it has a community/online purpose.
I buy games if they're really good, but its rare anything is really good anymore. I will buy Skyrim, games of that caliber deserve my hard earned coin. So until those shoty 2nd rate, crap feeding companies step up their games, I will be trying before I be buying.
Oh look, we're still going on with the "copying is stealing" argument.
Stealing is stealing, copying is not. You can't exactly steal a digital item like a video game since you aren't depriving the original owners of it.
That's why these "you wouldn't steal a handbag" things are so rificilous as comparisons, when you steal a handbag you are taking an actual physical handbag that the owner aren't getting back. (Assuming that you never get caught with it.)
And no, taking a picture of a picture is not stealing a picture either, there'd be a whole lot of "stolen" mona lisa images on mugs, paper and all kinds of apparel out there otherwise, hell any image search on google would be stealing then..
I see it differently. I'm a writer. If I was actually a good enough writer to sell a novel and the first person to buy it then somehow managed to make a few million copies of it and give it away for free to people who would otherwise have bought it, well, I wouldn't be too upset because publishing companies tend to rip off writers horrendously, but I'd be a little upset, because there would go my weekly snack and soda money worth of royalties.
But it still wouldn't be stealing, it would be a breach of copyright.
See, i'm not telling everyone that copying for mass distribution is a good thing, i just want people to argue the correct terms and situations, not boxing everything in with terms people connect with physical violence and deprivation of property.
Still grey areas are grey, not every illegal copy optained is a sale lost, i know plenty of people who simply must have the game box or a hardcover book even if they already own the thing.
Heres the question, are you not buying it because you don't want to play it, or are you not buying it because you can get it for free? Does the developer lose money by you pirating a game? Yes. Just because you go out and buy a copy later, doesn't mean you aren't taking something in the first place that wasn't freely given. Most games have trials now, did you try looking for a legitimate piece of the game before going directly to the decidedly illegal and questionable sites to download full version sufficiently utilizing cracks to play it?
What if I just dont have the money to buy it? Im not downloading instead of buying just because I can get it for free. If I had the money I would but I don't so I cant. The company does not lose a cent because they would have never received a cent. How did they lose? Please tell me. How can you be a vicitm of theft and not lose anything?
I think its simple to decipher why its wrong. This isn't a DVD from a friend, this is a completely stand alone title from a group of anonymous donors, most of which never purchased the DVD in the first place. Stealing a DvD from someone and letting your friend borrow it doesn't make it somehow better. You aren't sharing, you aren't letting someone borrow something. You are copying property directly from the source, modifying it so you don't need the source material, and giving it away for free in the case of games, circumventing protections to ensure no payment is necessary.
What difference should it make where it came from? Seriously. So stealing is ok when you have a friend as an accomplice? Is the theft in the fact that it has been modified? So if I buy and modify a game thats wrong too? So games that have mods out there that essentially turn them in to different games or add something that was not in the original is wrong? How about if I buy a game and then use a no cd crack? I have then modified it so I don't need the source material does that count too? BTW I never said anything about stealing the DVD.
Its like if someone saw an amazing photograph that took a lot of time and effort to find the right spot... to wait for the right moment, to, to capture what you wanted to capture, it had your heart and soul in it. Something one of a kind you wanted to sell exclusively, but instead someone took a picture of your picture, and just handed them out for free. Is it moral to take something that isn't yours and share it? Who says it isn't moral? The people getting screwed over no doubt, but in any sense, you could easily be that person in a situation where you find something that isn't always necessarily illegal being immoral.
So this picture had a limited market and I happen to find every single person that wanted that picture and gave it away for free? It must have had a limited market or I must be a mind reader to find every single person in the world that would have paid money for it. So not one person bought the picture huh? Not one person wanted a legit copy of that picture? Must have been a pretty crappy picture. Can you possibly give me an example of that happening in video games, music or movies? Your comparison is nothing more than whimsical fanatasy. Unrealistic at best. How many copies are there of the Mona Lisa? Has that depreciated its value at all? Am I stealing if I download one of those?
They were going to receive money, simply because if you couldn't download anything your only CHOICE would be to buy it. Thats as much of a selling point as any, that you only have the choice to buy it, or not buy it. If you couldn't get it for free, then you wouldn't play it. How is that smart, to say "Well if I can't get it for free, I just wouldn't get it" well thats the point isn't it. If I can't get a porsche for free, porsche wouldn't get my business anyways, so stealing them off the lot is okay, and it doesn't hurt anyone because its coming off the lot, and not from a specific person, right? Because I wasn't going to spend money on a Porsche, its okay to take it, because they weren't getting my money anyways? And if I like that porsche and decide I want to buy it? That makes it okay? So stealing something until you have the chance to buy it is moral AND fiscally responsible? This is the stance we're taking here?
I just went through this in another thread there are more options than just buying it. So that kind of makes the rest of your point moot and once again how is it stealing if no one actually loses anything?
And yet, your option of stealing it is the one you choose, because its easier. You could play a demo, you could rent it at a store that has rights to the content in a sharing capacity, or you could play with others, bu you choose to steal it where you have no due date on returning it, you have no duplication of property like a download, and you have only a small time frame to play it with someone else. When you rent, play at a friends house, or borrow from a friend, you aren't keeping, you are playing the exact game as it was meant to be played, you aren't using cracks or hacks to make sure the companies protection stops you from playing. When you pirate, you are stealing.
There would be no due date if I borrowed it from a friend and in essence according to your beliefs I am still stealing it. I am playing something that I did not buy or rent. According to you I have rights to this at all and yet there I am playing away. So is it only the cracks and hacks that make it stealing? Once again going back to the no cd crack. I am then stealing even if I bought the game because I am making sure the companies protection does not stop me from playing the game. What if I borrow the game from a friend install it and then use a no cd crack? That would be stealing even though my friend let me use the game. How about older games where all you had to do was copy the cd? There was no cracking or hacking involved. Stealing still? Even if its my friends game that he was going to let me borrow anyways?
Not my argument totally, just some others mentioned along the way in the thread, and theres too much debate going on to focus on these in particular.
I agree
You don't have money, or will not buy the game right? But you don't have to buy it because its free on the internet. Right? The company loses, but you win. You get the game, even though the company doesn't get the money for the game.
The last part is true I do get the game for free but the company never loses anything because they would have never got a cent anyways. You can not lose something you do not have. What did they lose? The ability to sell me a game? No the ability is still there? Did I take their game make real copies of it and sell it thus taking away from the money they would have made from people who obviously wanted to pay for the game? Nope. Did they lose their game and now no one will pay for it..nope. You keep saying its stealing what are they losing?
Even if you play the game and decide you like it 3 months later and buy it, the company loses, you just bought a 3 month old game with a price reduction. You benefit at the cost of the game company, the retailers, and so on. Just because you weren't going to buy it doesn't mean you can steal it.
Read the microsoft quotes I posted. It all starts to make sense.
*I'm not going to buy batman arkham city, so I'm going to borrow it from a friend instead. I have the money to buy it, but I choose not to. Is the company losing money? Who is losing something? I get a game for free. I have money to spend, but I don't want to buy Arkham City. Hell, I don't want to buy anything ever. Who wants to spend money on shit when they don't have to? So if I can get it for free online, then it doesn't matter if I like it, don't like it, think its worth the money or not, its free, and thats all that matters, and the best part is -- nobody loses!*
Why is it that when I change that one part of the post it becomes ok? Someone had to buy a legit version of the game to crack it. Maybe they rented it thats ok too. The point you have made is that it is not ok just because it is online. That the people I am getting it from I don't know. It is not a practical argument in the world of today.
"Home taping is killing record industry profits! We left this side blank so you can help." - the b-side of In God We Trust, Inc by the Dead Kennedys.
Piracy in the gaming industry is, or should be, a non-issue. Pretty much most games are quickly moving toward internal malls anyway. It's a neat and practical solution to the issue and one I think is quite innovative. It means even if you copied and pasted your game without paying for it, at least you pay for it in other ways. And I'm sure many forward-thinking developers are looking at things that way.
I think it ties into the eternal problem of retailing: How much is this thing I want to sell worth to my potential customers?
As someone working in the book industry in Australia, I find it amusing to hear people complain of the price of our books. Far too expensive! They should be, like, only one dollar. It's cheaper everywhere else in the world, they yell at me. They know this, because the newspapers and the tv told them last year over Christmas. We had the worst Christmas retailing because the newspapers were gleefully telling everyone new tech was cheaper. Better. So one of the major companies went bust. You could argue there were many internal reasons for this, but if they'd had the bumper Christmas we normally have, it might also be argued they may have managed to hold on for a while longer.
Instead, more than a third of the Book Industry shut pretty much overnight. Book Distributors went out of business a few nights later. Even now, the effects are being felt with the major publishers and distributors publishing and printing less and firing their own staff. Many small publishers find themselves without Distributors and collapse with no means to distribute their books effectively across the country.
The end result has been customers being even more angry at us. This time, not about the prices. But that they have had to travel more to find a bookshop. Where once we were on every street, we're now maybe a few suburbs away.
Finally, the kinds of shops which are moving into the closed shops are remainder bookshops. They sell stuff publishers couldn't sell to anyone at normal price. So, everything under ten bucks. Sounds great. But the quality really is to be questioned. Sure, you might find the odd bargain, but really. It's all rubbish. So we get more complaints that the "other bookshop" is selling garbage and it's not fair. Why my store is at fault I'm not so sure. I'm not the one selling garbage.
What did this have to do with piracy? Not much. But it's an example of that whole "voting with your wallet" thing. If you want the continued convenience, quality, and service, I'm afraid you have to pay for it. There's so many articles around complaining about the customer service of many gaming companies in particular. I won't even begin my Blizzard rant (who technically should have been able to afford at least a few people to answer emails). But if you've got a game which isn't actually bringing in enough cash to pay a few guys to sit around answering emails 24/7, then it's impossible to actually supply the service we who want stuff free and now expect.
There's an old saying I think is always very apt in arguments like this. It goes; You get what you paid for.
If piracy wasn't such a big deal, then why do these companies spend millions to prevent it? Not only that, but they drive legitimate customers away with their invasive, all too often buggy, DRM programs. I don't fall for the - "I only pirate the game to test it out". Most games have a free trial.
Using movies as an example. Maybe you are not going to pay for that movie, anways. That doesn't mean you have the right to see it for free. Go to wal-mart, steal something, and try to use the defense that you were A) not going to buy it anyways because you are a cheap freeloader(yet, ironically, you're angered by all the welfare that goes around), testing out the product, but you were gonna pay for it.
Don't steal. Don't be a hypocrite. Don't be a moron.
Game priacy figures are so overstated and grossly over estimated, Especially when they say things like "global piracy figure is X" because its not fair to lump China into the global figure. China has a real problem, piracy is rampant there and the government has no real interest in stopping it.
Remember before consoles really took hold & publishers were saying "were going to consoles because piracy on PC is costing us billions" it was crap then and its crap now. You dont hear much about priacy figures on PC anymore.... Instead publishers are praising the digital distribution revolution while demonizing the second hand console games market ($20 online play pass anyone ?).
Was there priacy on PC ? of course and I am pretty sure one of the leading reasons for piracy on PC was delayed global releases which is something publishers have addressed with global release dates & digital distro to the point I doubt its anywhere near the true levels it once was (excluding china & other piracy problem nations). Is there still piracy on PC ? you would be naieve to believe there was not but it was never near the levels publishers reported and I doubt the levels they report now are even close to the true much lower figures.
Again Countries like China and other problem piracy nations are another beast entirely and should be dealt with accordingly.
But it still wouldn't be stealing, it would be a breach of copyright.
See, i'm not telling everyone that copying for mass distribution is a good thing, i just want people to argue the correct terms and situations, not boxing everything in with terms people connect with physical violence and deprivation of property.
Still grey areas are grey, not every illegal copy optained is a sale lost, i know plenty of people who simply must have the game box or a hardcover book even if they already own the thing.
In the sense that it potentially takes from the owner profit that would otherwise have gone to the owner, it is stealing. This isn't a court of law, it's a forum, but if you really want me to break out the copyright law definitions, believe me, I can. Long and short of it is, though, if copying and distributing someone's lawful property prevents the property owner from profiting from their property, it's stealing. It's not stealing the item, because you're right, the item is still in the possession of the owner, but by distributing the copy or obtaining it for your own use without paying when you would have otherwise bought a copy, you have stolen from the owner. What you stole was not the property, but the profit that belonged to the owner.
Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky with you about word definitions, though, I apologize if I've come off that way. I simply don't care for using legal terms in this forum, pun intended, because I have almost zero respect for the law in the first place, so I prefer not to get into the nuances of legal terminology.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Didn't like this article. Yes, modders who ruin games for others are a huge problem, but pirates are as well. I just think the writer of this article doesn't personally feel the pain from pirates but he does modders, so that is all he cares about in his selfish way. But believe me, a game company hates both of them equally, and they are both still a huge problem.
In fact, many modders are also pirates, and their ability to mod undetected proves they also have the ability to pirate undetected even for online games. Pirates = Modders for the most part, so it is just misguided to pretend one is a problem but the other isn't.
And those who pirate and think it's no big deal, you are stealing and should go to jail. Plain and simple. If you can't afford the game, too bad. I can't afford to take 4 week vacations boo hoo...
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
So if I loan a friend that movie to be viewed by 50 family members then that really does't feel so wrong. If I am loaning it to 50 people I don't know every single day then at some point very soon I know that I've gone too far.
The point still kind of remains the same though. 50 people who did not pay for that movie watched it. If they are family or friends it really doesn't matter. If you loaned it out individually to 50 people or you loaned it to one person who watched it with 49 people the math stays the same.
So often what is right or wrong is a matter of perspective and situations. Just so you know I clipped your post down for no other reasons than space.
Hacking Diablo 2 was awesome Item Grabber anyone ? lol.
Anyways the writer of this article is a fool any avg user can find a torrent for any single player game and install it. (they come with instructions comeon now). Even if the game requires steam theres hacked versions of steams dll file that allows you to do this. This entire article is one fool who is as dumb as the people he thinks hes writing about.
I can tell you this from experience, as you seem to have none, the average computer user does not know what a torrent is, they do not know what a .dll file is, and they sure as hell do not know what Steam is. I work in tech support. I deal with people's computer issues everyday. Most people know how to turn their computer on, click on something on their desktop, and type in something in Google. That is about it. Now, there are varying degrees of knowledge across age groups of course, with the younger generation (below 40) generally knowing what the difference between a browser and a website is. But on the whole, the average user does not know how to pirate games, regardless of instructions.
Now, I tend to agree with the author of this article. Pirating is not as big of deal as the "industries" make it out to, in my opinion. It's just natural to think that game developers would care more about not getting someone's money from a game, than about someone who already paid but is not playing by the rules. But alas, I have no clue, I am not a game developer/publisher. I do not support either and am ok with the way most developers fight the problem, except when it's too invasive (looking at you Ubisoft).
So if I loan a friend that movie to be viewed by 50 family members then that really does't feel so wrong. If I am loaning it to 50 people I don't know every single day then at some point very soon I know that I've gone too far.
The point still kind of remains the same though. 50 people who did not pay for that movie watched it. If they are family or friends it really doesn't matter. If you loaned it out individually to 50 people or you loaned it to one person who watched it with 49 people the math stays the same.
So often what is right or wrong is a matter of perspective and situations. Just so you know I clipped your post down for no other reasons than space.
If I loan the same movie out to 50 people, it's different from burning 50 copies and giving those away because 1. Not everyone can watch it at the same time, and those who have to wait their turn might very well go buy the movie instead. 2. The original, purchased movie is likely to get lost in the process and never make it around to 50 people anyway.
As for loaning it to one person who then views it with 49 people, how many people can fit 50 into their living room?
If you went out and rented a movie theater and showed a movie to 50 of your friends, I'm not sure what the law would say, but I imagine if you did it once, without trying to profit, you wouldn't be sued, much less charged with any crime, because it wouldn't be worth it to the company and it would certainly be bad publicity. If you tried to charge money for it, however, you would probably not get away with it, or at least not very often, because then you and others who witnessed your profitable example would have motivation to keep renting out that theater and showing that movie.
As for friends and family vs strangers, what is the motive of someone copying a movie for a friend or family member? Non-profit and not to do harm to the company or deprive it of profit, or at least that's a fair assumption. It's simply an act of kindness toward a loved one. What is the motivation for sharing a movie with 10,000 strangers on the internet, though?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
I personally support game developers and purchase the games I know I want to play. Have I torrented games before, yup and probably will do it again.
Not saying I am right by any means, but it is what it is. The games I look foreward to I always purchase, games that i am on the fence about and just want to try before I buy it I will usually download and play for a bit. If I like it then I will buy it simply because I want a legit copy with the updates, patches, DLC, multiplayer, ect. I have saved money by trying out games and not liking them, then erase em from the hard drive.
My most recent PC purchase was Rage. And in all honesty I wish I would have torrented it before hand because I sure as hell would not have bought it. I requested and got credit from Steam which I used to buy another product from them.
And as for music and movies- I could give a shit- Boo F*@king hoo if the movie star only makes 25 Million this year instead of 26 Million. Same goes for most music artists who make millions upon million then want to sue the school teacher making 25k a year for downloading one of their songs.
Comments
Long before the internet even existed people lend books, cassettes and whatnot to each other. Never killed the bookindustry or musiclabels.
Nowadays it is no sharing cause it hurts our sales.
Trollolol rootkit cause we don't trust you.
Trollolol register and accept terms of agreement which state that you own nothing or you can't play.
Soon every copy comes with a cop holding you a gun to the head incase you overstep the everchanging terms of agreement.
Piracy is free from all of that and they wonder why people pirate. Oh and btw: This is not stealing its fucking copying. If it would be stealing I could download a game 2million times and stop them from selling their game which is obviously not the case. Personally i don't pirate as I turned to old for that and simply don't buy but i fully understand the kids who do. Especially if they lack the money to buy anyway it is not lost sales. Fail companys like to blame their failures on piracy cause it makes them look better than they are.
Pi*1337/100 = 42
No worries sonny, if you lack the money just steal it...
Yup....and in point of fact, you can even choose which IP address if you really know what you are doing and/or get lucky.
Because of the nature of DHCP clients can make a request for a specific address and the DHCP will honor it if that address is not already taken.
That's the default behavior for renewing a lease which has expired.....
Your computer had x.x.x.27, it's lease expires, it asks the DHCP server for address x.x.x.27, if the server has that address available it'll grant it to you.
Here is the thing, it's the client that determines what address to request and under what conditions. A default windows DHCP client only will request a specific IP address if it had an existing lease for that address...but there is nothing to stop a hacker from installing thier own DHCP client to which they could have added the functionality that allows them to specify the address they want to request whenever they want.
Heck if you really want to be crude you could just manualy bind an IP address to your NIC from within the range that you know your ISP draws from....if that address isn't already taken by someone (and it's not uncommon for an ISP to hold a few back from it's DHCP pools)....it'll actualy work...unless the ISP takes special measures to prevent that....which most don't.
You don't have money, or will not buy the game right? But you don't have to buy it because its free on the internet. Right? The company loses, but you win. You get the game, even though the company doesn't get the money for the game.
Even if you play the game and decide you like it 3 months later and buy it, the company loses, you just bought a 3 month old game with a price reduction. You benefit at the cost of the game company, the retailers, and so on. Just because you weren't going to buy it doesn't mean you can steal it.
*I'm not going to buy batman arkham city, so I'm going to steal it. I have the money to buy it, but I choose not to. Is the company losing money? Who is losing something? I get a game for free. I have money to spend, but I don't want to buy Arkham City. Hell, I don't want to buy anything ever. Who wants to spend money on shit when they don't have to? So if I can get it for free online, then it doesn't matter if I like it, don't like it, think its worth the money or not, its free, and thats all that matters, and the best part is -- nobody loses!*
It should be like that, right?
Humorously enough, the only way the gaming industry has lost revenue from me (other than by making some truly shitty games), is by adding incredibly draconian DRM measures that really only inconvenience the legitimate game buyers. UBIsoft I'm looking right at you.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
It's interesting you post the part I highlighted in Yellow because i was thinking of that on my way home.
And that's where the "cut and dried part" falls apart I suppose.
And here's why.
You are sold an item to use for private use. They expect you are going view a movie or perhaps listent to a cd with friends.
Now, if you watch a movie with 50 family members then that's certainly prviate use. If you invite the town to a showing at the town hall then that's considered something else. Any town hall that is showing a movie has to get the permission to do so.
And that's where the lawyers come in I suppose.
I would certianly think that loaning something to someone for a family gathering of 50 people wouldn't be so big a deal but where is the line. I can certainly recognize that one exists. But it's not really quantified.
Where I adhere more to the "cut and dried" part is that you purchase a game, movie, cd and I imagine there is a terms of use for it.
You agree to those terms or you don't.
In a perfect world we would be more respectful of each other and not try to screw each other over but this isn't a perfect world.
So if I loan a friend that movie to be viewed by 50 family members then that really does't feel so wrong. If I am loaning it to 50 people I don't know every single day then at some point very soon I know that I've gone too far.
But that line is there. So I suppose that is where the lawyers come in.
However, part of that is intent. Me sharing a game or movie with 50 family memebers to view or play at a special event or me giving it to a friend to do the same feels very different than me putting it out there so that thousands and thousands of people don't have to pay for it.
Which then goes back to the terms of the product.
As far as your last part, all I have to say is "good for them". It's their product and they can do with it what they will. If they would prefer people to pirate from them then that's their choice. But other companies might not feel the same and that's their right.
If a company says "You can only play this once and then return it and you have to pay heavily for that privilege" and those are the terms they have made. You then decide whether it's worth it.
If a company says you don't have to pay up front but can donate using paypal then that's their decision. That decision doesn't invalidate another company's desire to charge a specific fee.
And in the end we aren't talking about loaning your game or movie or cd to your family or your friends' family. We are talking about giving it to thousands and thousands upon thousands of people so they don't have to pay for it.
It's not stealing because to steal you have to take something from someone so they no longer have it. It is however acquiring something illegally. At least as much as their terms of use outlines.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Of course this is true in a sense, but in another sense, the situation has changed. While I could certainly copy a tape and give it to a friend (I had tons of tapes from recording favorite songs on the radio to recording TV shows and movies), I could not easily distribute the copies worldwide and for free. Now if I choose to I can share music and movies with the entire internet using planet. The technology has changed, therefore the amount of potential damage to the owner of the work has changed.
As I said already, I couldn't care less about stealing from a bunch of corporate thieves, and I couldn't care less what our legal system happens to say on any matter, except to make sure I know which side of the law my actions happen to be on in order to take evasive action should that prove necessary. But that doesn't change the facts of the matter.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Oh look, we're still going on with the "copying is stealing" argument.
Stealing is stealing, copying is not. You can't exactly steal a digital item like a video game since you aren't depriving the original owners of it.
That's why these "you wouldn't steal a handbag" things are so ridiculous as comparisons, when you steal a handbag you are taking an actual physical handbag that the owner aren't getting back. (Assuming that you never get caught with it.)
And no, taking a picture of a picture is not stealing a picture either, there'd be a whole lot of "stolen" mona lisa images on mugs, paper and all kinds of apparel out there otherwise, hell any image search on google would be stealing then..
I see it differently. I'm a writer. If I was actually a good enough writer to sell a novel and the first person to buy it then somehow managed to make a few million copies of it and give it away for free to people who would otherwise have bought it, well, I wouldn't be too upset because publishing companies tend to rip off writers horrendously, but I'd be a little upset, because there would go my weekly snack and soda money worth of royalties.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
wow, epic comment section is epic! O_O
As a published game dev, let me say to the people above that think piracy hurts devs and sales: YOU'RE WRONG. You've been bamboozled and frankly you must be tad bit gullible.
All data shows that piracy in fact increases the demand in dollars for a game. A game that is not pirated early is a game likely to fail and not make its development costs back.
Think of pirating as free advertising, or customer driven advertising.
Most so called pirates are as describe by many above; users who download the content, look at it for an extremely short time (an hour or two) then decide if it warrants keeping on a hard drive or if its worth the purchase price. This in no way can have anything but a positive effect on sales.
Sales numbers that come out after a patched pirated release show clearly that when the pirating community breaths fresh interest into a product it translates into real-world sales.
This argument goes on inside dev studios also keep in mind with people on both sides of the argument. It generally boils down like this: Producers and marketing think pirating is wrong and they can get more money from investors if they "protect" their investment. The entire rest of the dev teams believe the opposite, that the sooner the product is leaked the better it will be for everyone involved. In fact most leaks come from within.
Do people believe hackers are breaching company security or private networks to gain early access to code so that they can release the cracked version before or at the same time as the boxed copy? The notion is ludicrous.
Devs want their products to be pirated, the more copies of their game floating around the more likely that the gaming community is likely to spend money and even save money to buy their next game.
To many crappy games out there for me to spend my every last dollar on... games like Game of Thrones, a company living on the hype of the books/show. They will have me to pay them $40 for that steamin pile of crap. I will just download it for free, save me time and money. The only way I buy a game is if it has a community/online purpose.
I buy games if they're really good, but its rare anything is really good anymore. I will buy Skyrim, games of that caliber deserve my hard earned coin. So until those shoty 2nd rate, crap feeding companies step up their games, I will be trying before I be buying.
But it still wouldn't be stealing, it would be a breach of copyright.
See, i'm not telling everyone that copying for mass distribution is a good thing, i just want people to argue the correct terms and situations, not boxing everything in with terms people connect with physical violence and deprivation of property.
Still grey areas are grey, not every illegal copy optained is a sale lost, i know plenty of people who simply must have the game box or a hardcover book even if they already own the thing.
Oh boy, we're also quickly getting up to lollipop status on the quotes, damn color text.
and i even cut out a lot of it. Sorry but sometimes it is the most effective way to answer. I do hate it though.
"Home taping is killing record industry profits! We left this side blank so you can help." - the b-side of In God We Trust, Inc by the Dead Kennedys.
Piracy in the gaming industry is, or should be, a non-issue. Pretty much most games are quickly moving toward internal malls anyway. It's a neat and practical solution to the issue and one I think is quite innovative. It means even if you copied and pasted your game without paying for it, at least you pay for it in other ways. And I'm sure many forward-thinking developers are looking at things that way.
I think it ties into the eternal problem of retailing: How much is this thing I want to sell worth to my potential customers?
As someone working in the book industry in Australia, I find it amusing to hear people complain of the price of our books. Far too expensive! They should be, like, only one dollar. It's cheaper everywhere else in the world, they yell at me. They know this, because the newspapers and the tv told them last year over Christmas. We had the worst Christmas retailing because the newspapers were gleefully telling everyone new tech was cheaper. Better. So one of the major companies went bust. You could argue there were many internal reasons for this, but if they'd had the bumper Christmas we normally have, it might also be argued they may have managed to hold on for a while longer.
Instead, more than a third of the Book Industry shut pretty much overnight. Book Distributors went out of business a few nights later. Even now, the effects are being felt with the major publishers and distributors publishing and printing less and firing their own staff. Many small publishers find themselves without Distributors and collapse with no means to distribute their books effectively across the country.
The end result has been customers being even more angry at us. This time, not about the prices. But that they have had to travel more to find a bookshop. Where once we were on every street, we're now maybe a few suburbs away.
Finally, the kinds of shops which are moving into the closed shops are remainder bookshops. They sell stuff publishers couldn't sell to anyone at normal price. So, everything under ten bucks. Sounds great. But the quality really is to be questioned. Sure, you might find the odd bargain, but really. It's all rubbish. So we get more complaints that the "other bookshop" is selling garbage and it's not fair. Why my store is at fault I'm not so sure. I'm not the one selling garbage.
What did this have to do with piracy? Not much. But it's an example of that whole "voting with your wallet" thing. If you want the continued convenience, quality, and service, I'm afraid you have to pay for it. There's so many articles around complaining about the customer service of many gaming companies in particular. I won't even begin my Blizzard rant (who technically should have been able to afford at least a few people to answer emails). But if you've got a game which isn't actually bringing in enough cash to pay a few guys to sit around answering emails 24/7, then it's impossible to actually supply the service we who want stuff free and now expect.
There's an old saying I think is always very apt in arguments like this. It goes; You get what you paid for.
If piracy wasn't such a big deal, then why do these companies spend millions to prevent it? Not only that, but they drive legitimate customers away with their invasive, all too often buggy, DRM programs. I don't fall for the - "I only pirate the game to test it out". Most games have a free trial.
Using movies as an example. Maybe you are not going to pay for that movie, anways. That doesn't mean you have the right to see it for free. Go to wal-mart, steal something, and try to use the defense that you were A) not going to buy it anyways because you are a cheap freeloader(yet, ironically, you're angered by all the welfare that goes around),
testing out the product, but you were gonna pay for it.
Don't steal. Don't be a hypocrite. Don't be a moron.
Game priacy figures are so overstated and grossly over estimated, Especially when they say things like "global piracy figure is X" because its not fair to lump China into the global figure. China has a real problem, piracy is rampant there and the government has no real interest in stopping it.
Remember before consoles really took hold & publishers were saying "were going to consoles because piracy on PC is costing us billions" it was crap then and its crap now. You dont hear much about priacy figures on PC anymore.... Instead publishers are praising the digital distribution revolution while demonizing the second hand console games market ($20 online play pass anyone ?).
Was there priacy on PC ? of course and I am pretty sure one of the leading reasons for piracy on PC was delayed global releases which is something publishers have addressed with global release dates & digital distro to the point I doubt its anywhere near the true levels it once was (excluding china & other piracy problem nations). Is there still piracy on PC ? you would be naieve to believe there was not but it was never near the levels publishers reported and I doubt the levels they report now are even close to the true much lower figures.
Again Countries like China and other problem piracy nations are another beast entirely and should be dealt with accordingly.
In the sense that it potentially takes from the owner profit that would otherwise have gone to the owner, it is stealing. This isn't a court of law, it's a forum, but if you really want me to break out the copyright law definitions, believe me, I can. Long and short of it is, though, if copying and distributing someone's lawful property prevents the property owner from profiting from their property, it's stealing. It's not stealing the item, because you're right, the item is still in the possession of the owner, but by distributing the copy or obtaining it for your own use without paying when you would have otherwise bought a copy, you have stolen from the owner. What you stole was not the property, but the profit that belonged to the owner.
Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky with you about word definitions, though, I apologize if I've come off that way. I simply don't care for using legal terms in this forum, pun intended, because I have almost zero respect for the law in the first place, so I prefer not to get into the nuances of legal terminology.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Didn't like this article. Yes, modders who ruin games for others are a huge problem, but pirates are as well. I just think the writer of this article doesn't personally feel the pain from pirates but he does modders, so that is all he cares about in his selfish way. But believe me, a game company hates both of them equally, and they are both still a huge problem.
In fact, many modders are also pirates, and their ability to mod undetected proves they also have the ability to pirate undetected even for online games. Pirates = Modders for the most part, so it is just misguided to pretend one is a problem but the other isn't.
And those who pirate and think it's no big deal, you are stealing and should go to jail. Plain and simple. If you can't afford the game, too bad. I can't afford to take 4 week vacations boo hoo...
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
The point still kind of remains the same though. 50 people who did not pay for that movie watched it. If they are family or friends it really doesn't matter. If you loaned it out individually to 50 people or you loaned it to one person who watched it with 49 people the math stays the same.
So often what is right or wrong is a matter of perspective and situations. Just so you know I clipped your post down for no other reasons than space.
I can tell you this from experience, as you seem to have none, the average computer user does not know what a torrent is, they do not know what a .dll file is, and they sure as hell do not know what Steam is. I work in tech support. I deal with people's computer issues everyday. Most people know how to turn their computer on, click on something on their desktop, and type in something in Google. That is about it. Now, there are varying degrees of knowledge across age groups of course, with the younger generation (below 40) generally knowing what the difference between a browser and a website is. But on the whole, the average user does not know how to pirate games, regardless of instructions.
Now, I tend to agree with the author of this article. Pirating is not as big of deal as the "industries" make it out to, in my opinion. It's just natural to think that game developers would care more about not getting someone's money from a game, than about someone who already paid but is not playing by the rules. But alas, I have no clue, I am not a game developer/publisher. I do not support either and am ok with the way most developers fight the problem, except when it's too invasive (looking at you Ubisoft).
If I loan the same movie out to 50 people, it's different from burning 50 copies and giving those away because 1. Not everyone can watch it at the same time, and those who have to wait their turn might very well go buy the movie instead. 2. The original, purchased movie is likely to get lost in the process and never make it around to 50 people anyway.
As for loaning it to one person who then views it with 49 people, how many people can fit 50 into their living room?
If you went out and rented a movie theater and showed a movie to 50 of your friends, I'm not sure what the law would say, but I imagine if you did it once, without trying to profit, you wouldn't be sued, much less charged with any crime, because it wouldn't be worth it to the company and it would certainly be bad publicity. If you tried to charge money for it, however, you would probably not get away with it, or at least not very often, because then you and others who witnessed your profitable example would have motivation to keep renting out that theater and showing that movie.
As for friends and family vs strangers, what is the motive of someone copying a movie for a friend or family member? Non-profit and not to do harm to the company or deprive it of profit, or at least that's a fair assumption. It's simply an act of kindness toward a loved one. What is the motivation for sharing a movie with 10,000 strangers on the internet, though?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
I personally support game developers and purchase the games I know I want to play. Have I torrented games before, yup and probably will do it again.
Not saying I am right by any means, but it is what it is. The games I look foreward to I always purchase, games that i am on the fence about and just want to try before I buy it I will usually download and play for a bit. If I like it then I will buy it simply because I want a legit copy with the updates, patches, DLC, multiplayer, ect. I have saved money by trying out games and not liking them, then erase em from the hard drive.
My most recent PC purchase was Rage. And in all honesty I wish I would have torrented it before hand because I sure as hell would not have bought it. I requested and got credit from Steam which I used to buy another product from them.
And as for music and movies- I could give a shit- Boo F*@king hoo if the movie star only makes 25 Million this year instead of 26 Million. Same goes for most music artists who make millions upon million then want to sue the school teacher making 25k a year for downloading one of their songs.
Just my 2cp.