Gaming [Q] Why do people pirate?
you are only sharing your subjective POV
Oxford definition of piracy : "The unauthorized use or reproduction of another’s work: software piracy"
Oxford definition of Robbing: "(rob someone of) Deprive someone of (something needed or deserved): poor health has robbed her of a normal social life"
Deprive someone of something also means robbing as you are depriving income to developers and enabling others to do so ( sharing warez and torrenting )
wake up from your hibernation and realize that you live in a capitalist world which is really hard to change
this world isn't tolerant with dreams ,either enforce it or go back to sleeping
you can enforce it by spending a crazy amount of hours and developing a really game on the same caliber as AAA games then releasing it for free !
which you will never do
Well if we are doing legal definitions now then we surely have to mention that most piracy people around here would engage in would be a civil offence (rather than a criminal, or even federal if that is a distinction that is made).
You are implying that he's using a time machine to stop sales that were never made. He's not depriving developers of anything, no transaction was ever made, money didn't change hands. You can't just assume that a pirate would buy the game if he/she couldn't pirate it, crystal balls don't do well in court.
well you can argue with that
fact is if you look at GOT series if i couldn't torrent it i would 100% buy it
same goes for countless anime i watch, and games i play
and again your argument isn't objective and the norm stays if it is for free why bother buy it
it is just human nature
it would be according to each nations law and how it regards it, i can't really be specific i am just trying to build a general concept
The norm is that predictions and make-believe numbers pulled out of a magic hat aren't facts. If what you're saying is true, how come the music industry still exists and is bigger than ever? You can legally listen to just about any song on YouTube (yes, among the many illegitimate uploads there are legal ones, see: Veoh), how come people still buy music if they can listen to it for free? I think your huge opinion is standing on tiny clay legs, sir.
If a sale hasn't been made then there is no sale lost, if money has not been transferred then there is no monetary loss either, transactions that didn't take place are not "lost" - they never took place to begin with. If anything, we can talk about lost "potential sales", which doesn't mean anything due to the magical word "potential".
You can't, with 100% certainty, speak up for every single pirate in the world and say that they'd buy games if they couldn't pirate them. I on the other hand can tell you with absolute certainty that there's loads of pirates who wouldn't own a 3DS if they couldn't pirate on it. Why? Because they're pirates and that's what they do - why'd they buy a system on which they can't pirate?
As a general rule of thumb copyright infringement is a civil offence in basically everywhere with a copyright setup in their law.
Sorry if it's already been mentioned thus far (too lazy to read 12 pages right now) but seriously to anyone that's condemning piracy, I really want you to put your money where your mouth is and buy ALL of your movies, tv shows and ESPECIALLY music. Seriously who the fuck doesn't pirate their music? I'm not saying such a goodie two shoes doesn't exist, just throwin' it out there.
The norm is that predictions and make-believe numbers pulled out of a magic hat aren't facts. If what you're saying is true, how come the music industry still exists and is bigger than ever? You can legally listen to just about any song on YouTube (yes, among the many illegitimate uploads there are legal ones, see: Veoh), how come people still buy music if they can listen to it for free? I think your huge opinion is standing on tiny clay legs, sir.
If a sale hasn't been made then there is no sale lost, if money has not been transferred then there is no monetary loss either, transactions that didn't take place are not "lost" - they never took place to begin with. If anything, we can talk about lost "potential sales", which doesn't mean anything due to the magical word "potential".
You can't, with 100% certainty, speak up for every single pirate in the world and say that they'd buy games if they couldn't pirate them. I on the other hand can tell you with absolute certainty that there's loads of pirates who wouldn't own a 3DS if they couldn't pirate on it. Why? Because they're pirates and that's what they do - why'd they buy a system on which they can't pirate?
i can relate to what you are saying but you are not being objective
i will try to make my point with no "crystal balling"
"If a sale hasn't been made then there is no sale lost"
"if money has not been transferred then there is no monetary loss either"
"we can talk about lost "potential sales", which doesn't mean anything due to the magical word "potential""
i can not speak for every pirate but i know that there are many people like me,(no crystal balling, all of my friends go on the rule , if it is free why bother buy it)
this conversation really drifted from the first post i tried to make which was
the point which i am trying to make is hat theft is theft and there is no way to justify it
the act of ("using game ROMs without direct consent from the maker/publisher is an act of stealing"), i couldn't give a rats ass about the money gained/lost but i care about the moral act and what divides right from wrong
the money talk is something i was forced to talk about due to post drifting which like i said i am not interested it
it is the act of unfair usage of the "makers" intellectual property which they have put tremendous effort in making and many hours in the process and the fact that they own it and have the right to either charge for it or give it away for free as they will.
you can not justify the usage of ROMs without the makers consent as it will only be an act of unlawful usage and maybe breaking the terms of EULA if there is any
My opinion isn't objective and yours is? How come? All you've presented so far is anecdotal evidence - what you and your friends do is your business, you're making sweeping generalizations. There's people who pirate hundreds upon hundreds of titles every single year simply because they can - do you expect that they'd buy all of those games if they didn't pirate them? Of course they wouldn't. Some wouldn't buy a single one, others would buy one or two favourites, but not one pirate has 100*$60 = $6000 of disposable income every single year just for video games. Most pirated titles would never materialize into a sale, that's just objective statistical fact. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't make you more objective at all. In fact, there's countries where the capability to pirate content on a given platform is the deciding factor on whether or not one should invest in it - that's often the case in Brazil, for instance.
As for your comparison with theft, it's not theft, we've been through this a thousand times. Theft is very clearly defined - Person A has Object X, Person B takes that Object X away in the process of theft and Person A no longer has the Object X - it's been stolen from him. This does not take place in piracy - Object X is unlawfully copied and you end up with Object X and Object X2, that's all there is to it. No theft occurs, Person A finds himself in the exact state as before, you can't argue that it's theft when Person A does not sustain a loss of any kind, and I'm not going to argue potential losses.
By your definition, if I go to a car dealership and buy a Porsche tomorrow morning, I'm depriving you of the "potential to own that car in the future". Forgive me for being so crude, but let's assume that you don't have enough disposable income for a Porsche - in this scenario, you wouldn't buy it to begin with, so I'm not depriving you of anything. There was zero chance of you owning that car, you had no intention to make that purchase, so me making it does not affect you in any way. Similarly, a pirate who wouldn't be able to afford 100+ games sure as s*it isn't going to buy them if there was no alternative, I can guarantee you that.
You're also mentioning breaking the EULA - that's all nice and dandy, but not exactly binding in 100% of cases - such things can be disputed depending on territorial law. For instance, where I live, I'm entitled to create a backup copy of any software I own regardless of what format it comes with - it's guaranteed by law. If I have the option to dump a cartridge and use its ROM instead, I am in full legal power to do so as long as I do not distribute it illegally or use it on more "stations" (as it's defined in law) than specified in the license (in the case of video games that's one station at a time). I think that's entirely sensible - storage mediums are subject to deterioration while licenses are not. If I own a license to, say, use Windows 8, I can create a stack of backups of my Windows 8 disc because I sure won't spend extra if my original disc is damaged beyond repair - I already bought the software once. Don't you think this is only fair? I most certainly do.
Seriously, stop mixing the concepts and pulling out logical jumping Oxford based comparisons like some guy before.
I will fix that for you:
Good now. Piracy is bad.
But piracy is not stealing. Stop mixing them up.
And I know the industry has pulled out of their asses this Goobellians approach to brain washing, like with the old "You won't steal a car" DVD propaganda.
In the past people saw they were talking BS, and it was even parodied in shows like the IT Crowd.
Nowadays, unfortunately, this Goebellian approach is making effect in young people.
There's only one way to steal a video game - go into a store or someone's house, take a game off the shelf and leg it. That's literally the only way to "steal" a video game, the software itself is intangible and cannot be "stolen".
I am allowed to review games, to make satirical content and various other things without so much as the publisher knowing I exist. Now by most legal definitions those are not copyright infringement specifically has those as exceptions to the rule but that would appear to be a problem with your definition.
1)"anecdotal eviden"
i said that many do and if deriving away from the "crsytal ball" concept me and my friends do it "atleast"
2)"As for your comparison with theft, it's not theft"
quote directly from FBI site :It’s robbing people of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions—what’s called intellectual property—everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies and music and software.
i have already supplied a definition of the word from oxford , i will not dwell on this segment again my point has been made crystal clear with perfectly spilled out words
i can not spoon feed you this anymore
3)"You're also mentioning breaking the EULA"
i explicitly said (and maybe breaking the terms of EULA if there is any)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/white_collar/ipr/ipr
It’s robbing people of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions—what’s called intellectual property—everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies and music and software.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/video-piracy
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/piracy
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/robbery
i will no longer reply to any posts you make
i have made my point 100% clear
That is an idiomatic use of the word robbing, that does not match with the legal meaning of theft.
That is the reason I say you are making logical shark jumps, based on Oxford or any other reputable source, but then bending the meaning to your taste.
i can not understand how this can be relevant but
it is called fair use act
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Code:
[SIZE=5][B]§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use[URL='http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-40']40[/URL][/B][/SIZE]
Notwithstanding the provisions of [URL='http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106']sections 106[/URL] and [URL='http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a']106A,[/URL] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.i quoted from FBI, i am in no way bending or shaping things
from the site you linked
Piracy
The act of violence or depredation on the high seas; also, the theft of Intellectual Property, especially in electronic media.
Yes, you are right given your evidence.
I have always considered them different crimes, and because of my own belief I will still do so, but the evidence you provide makes it clear:
In the USA and perhaps in several other countries, piracy is considered a from of theft.
So, that amount of evidence is enough for me to take it back, piracy = IP theft = one type of theft.
You're confusing the legal definition of theft with a dictionary one, legally theft is depriving someone of property, that does not take place, the game is still there, it's just illegally copied. You can argue copyright infringement, since you create a copy without consent, but you can't argue theft. Please show me a law that says piracy is theft.
I am quite familiar with the concept, however you were drawing lines in the sand along the lines of "any and all use that publisher/dev has not consented to counts as theft", I then gave something that the publisher might not wish to consent to but has no say in the matter and legally does not count as any kind of wrongdoing, let alone something as serious as theft.
i understand now
as i said the whole conversation drifted away
core thing was about using ROMs then it kind of escalated to that
Similar threads
-
BakerMan
I rather enjoy a life of taking it easy. I haven't reached that life yet though. -
Psionic Roshambo
-
Xdqwerty
what are you looking at? -
The Real Jdbye
*is birb*
