Euro Truck Simulator 2 seems to be one of these.Pushing it a bit some of the racing games and other driving games are rather potent simulations of real world places these days.
Euro Truck Simulator 2 seems to be one of these.Pushing it a bit some of the racing games and other driving games are rather potent simulations of real world places these days.
Yes. The two are separate acts. The first is theft, the second is a gift. Gifting does not mean that the act of theft never happened. The two loaves of bread are two separate objects.
If I never noticed, you still stole, but I wouldn't press charges ('cause I wouldn't even know).
If you're trying to equate this to downloading files online... the original files being read for the download are never modified or removed.
By the law no. By morals, depends on the situation and who you ask.
Commonly defined...."enjoyment/entertainment"... there is a very serious issue defining what exactly makes a game and is the subject of intense debate. To that end attempting to casually dismiss things gets to be tricky and "enjoyment/entertainment" is both rather narrow and open to a wide range of interpretations to say nothing of the potential minefield of "what is a "grave" need?”
There is a loss. With your act of taking my loaf of bread, I have lost that loaf of bread. You gave me another loaf of bread, but you still took MY loaf of bread.No I don't mean to say the two are equal, only to point out that an act of theft may occur without costing the victim anything or incurring any tangible loss. Which simply underlines the error of the definition you linked: "Piracy is not theft because it does not cause any direct damage or loss to the other party." But as you just agreed, in the case of the bread swap (where there was no direct damage or loss), an act of theft has still occurred; as you stated, one has "still stole."
There is a loss. With your act of taking my loaf of bread, I have lost that loaf of bread. You gave me another loaf of bread, but you still took MY loaf of bread.
The whole replacement thing only works if you count possessions as being equal and numerical, which is not how life works. People value certain individual possessions more than others. For example, I have this fuzzy blanket that was a gift from my first real girlfriend. I almost never use it because it's way smaller than a normal blanket, but I keep it with me because it's special. If somebody took that blanket, I'd want it back, even if they wanted to replace it with two.
The second act of giving does not erase the act of theft. Not getting caught does not mean you didn't do anything wrong, we're not 12 or something.
You are comparing an act of copying an item in which the original item is not changed with stealing an item from someone and replacing it and yet you don't see any problem with your logic ? Should I now also believe my body has been stolen when people take pictures of me ?So just to get this straight… you are willing to to broaden the definition of “loss” to include instances in which an object is taken and replaced with an identical object. You reason that due to some abstract sentimental attachment you had to the original-object, the replacement-object is not equivalent, even if it is indistinguishable. That’s a very nuanced view and it requires some justification for why the quirks of your emotional attachment should be considered when trying to measure if a tangible loss occurred.
But even in lieu of this nuanced understanding of “loss” you are endorsing, you still want to deny that copyright infringement is a loss in so far as a copyright holder upon infringement loses their exclusive right to produce and distribute an object.
Arbitrary and inconsistent sophistry, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Seriously, 12 year old logic still? Replacing something does not mean you never took it.So just to get this straight… you are willing to to broaden the definition of “loss” to include instances in which an object is taken and replaced with an identical object. You reason that due to some abstract sentimental attachment you had to the original-object, the replacement-object is not equivalent, even if it is indistinguishable. That’s a very nuanced view and it requires some justification for why the quirks of your emotional attachment should be considered when trying to measure if a tangible loss occurred.
Rights to reproduce an object are not the same as the object itself. Read the thread I linked more closely, and check some of the sources too.But even in lieu of this nuanced understanding of “loss” you are endorsing, you still want to deny that copyright infringement is a loss in so far as a copyright holder upon infringement loses their exclusive right to produce and distribute an object.
Inconsistent how? Tangible goods are clearly distinct from intangible rights, and the laws and regulations about the two differ.Arbitrary and inconsistent sophistry, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Well they'd have to catch you first. Very few people even get notices.What ever happened with that new law with ISP like Roadrunner and Comcast? I mean the one where they slow down your Internet if they find out you are downloading pirated media, and eventually sue you.
Seriously, 12 year old logic still?
That's because nothing from Canada is worth anything.You could take a loaf of bread from my house, replace it with a different loaf of bread and a bag of 10,000 canadian dollars, and you would still be guilty of theft.
The problem is that you assume that replacing the bread you took from me with another loaf magically makes the first act go away. It does not.It’s the wonky definition of theft that you are endorsing that’s leading to the weird logic here. I agree that the replacement example is an instance of theft. But for it to be theft as YOU define, it would require some loss or damage. If no loss or damage occurred and we still agree that it was a theft, then your definition is wrong which would open the door for an interpretation of copyright infringement as another possible form of non-loss/damage theft. My own point ended there.
That was just an example to point out that objects in real life are not part of some numerical order like a video game. A swap of one object for another may be the same in a video game (where inventories are often just collections of quantifier numbers), but in real life it is not the same as leaving the original alone.However you thought it wise to press on and suggest that there is in fact a loss/damage that occurs in the replacement example. Citing a “special” sentimental value assigned to the original, which renders it irreplaceable even with an indistinguishable copy.
What ever happened with that new law with ISP like Roadrunner and Comcast? I mean the one where they slow down your Internet if they find out you are downloading pirated media, and eventually sue you.
I refuse to reiterate what is meant by grave need -- my first post clearly describes the circumstances in which I am proposing piracy would be permissible and in turn outlines the conditions necessary for a “need” to pass this permissibility test.
Definitions are tricky in general. After all who should get to decide the limits and precise meaning of any term? So to avoid the quagmire of “meaning,” let’s just focus on a specific example. Crysis 2 was heavily pirated and makes for a good example of what I have in mind as “video games” designed specifically for “enjoyment/entertainment.” Would you like to provide a practical example in which one needs to pirate Crysis 2? If you can, congratulations, you will have successfully addressed an insignificant aside I made in saying, “I can't imagine any practical case in which it would be.”
i nvr look at like that i am now informed #YOLO