Would piracy be justified in a situation where ingame content is unavailable anymore?

[Minox]

Piracy will never be legally justified. You may choose to view it as morally justified, but the fact will remain that it won't be as far as the law is considered.

 

[Taleweaver]

I'm just with Cyan all the way on this. Why do threads like these pop up here every so often?

How is it the players fault for not being informed and/or not purchasing the game in time when the game was relavent.

Whoa, nice going there. The player's...fault? Cyan explains to you that piracy is illegal no matter the circumstances, and you somehow put players who didn't take advantage of a certain offer in a victim position?

So future players who later pick up interest for the game series miss out, and for what good reason? They could of not had the financial mean or were too busy at the time to have known about the specific title. It's a but crummy to not even offer paid DLC option, I mean the devs worked hard on that content and they wanna play it. Would be foolish to deny them the work they put in and appreciate it.

You throw out that question but don't give the example. That makes it hard to answer, don't you think? My guess is that the content you were referring to was announced and published as being exclusive. Which means that at that time, people had to pay extra for the exclusive right to that extra stuff. And did pay. Releasing it later for everyone would piss off those original customers (what's the point in buying something exclusive if everyone can get it?) and may damage the reputation of those makers (not many people are going to buy exclusive stuff from you if you have a history of releasing it for everyone later on).

While I personally don't give a rat's ass about exclusivity, I can understand why fans would want something special for a select few. And the makers providing it for them. As such, it happens that you can miss out on deals if you're not a fan. Fuck...I probably missed out on at least a dozen specials on the internet somewhere while typing this post alone. It doesn't justify me into getting all those specials when I feel like it.

99% of the sales are almost always during the first months. so if ppl pirate a game/movie/record that is like 10 years old it is good for the ppl that were involved producing it!

No longer true. While it is certainly true that the far majority of the sales happen in the first few months (weeks, even)*, things like the steam sales have made sure that games are still being sold years after release. I have also NO IDEA how you draw from that the conclusion that it is actually GOOD for the people being involved in the game. It doesn't raise familiarity with the franchise on a large scale and you're not likely to go out to buy the newer edition (which WOULD be good for those guys) because you're busy pirating their game from ten years ago.




*to be fair, I think this goes for piracy as well. The average recently released game is certainly shared online a whole lot more than anything over a year old.

 

[the_randomizer]

You sir are totally insane. Biggest bullshit.

You DO realize that he is a mod, right? I wouldn't go around saying that, but that's just me. What he's saying is, whatever people do, people do, but not to try to find reasons to justify or rationalize it.

Some people care about it, others don't, it's as simple as that.

 

[Fat D]

Legal? No. Justified? That is a philosophical question and varies widely between schools of thought. There is the school of thought that a creator should forever retain complete control over their creation, because without him, it would not exist. Under that school of thought, there is nothing that justifies that. But if that were the only guiding principle, then copyright terms would not be finite. Yes, the majority of the worldhas protections that go way beyond the life of the author, but the limits that exist still limit the power of his heirs, even if they act according to his written will.
There is another school of thought that views copyright as a means to an end, that end being encouraging creation by giving the creators the ability to exploit their works for a while. This is similar to how the patent system works (or rather is supposed to work, as there are lots of practical issues with that). The goal is to give humanity as a whole access to creations. Under that school of thought, there is potential for justification, and it can be a broad spectrum from "pirating exclusives discourages creation of future exclusives" to making sharing almost an imperative, as in "keep circulating the tapes".

As someone whose future career is going to be one of a creator, I say that creators have way too much legal power over their creations as it is, and more power needs to be devolved to the public, to the users. Seeing the spread of DRM (everywhere), glued-together tablets that prevent user-servicing (e.g. Surface Pro 3), online bans for home repair (XBox One) and similar things just makes me angry.

 

[koimayeul]

As much as tastes are relative and morals / ethics are absolute in general, in close to ALL cases..

There ARE exceptions confirming a rule, when it involves emergency (see the example of the Bible, Jesus-Christ saving people from their diseases even on the Sabbath day for this one) and therefore, how more so for inanimate objects, items (not real, living persons or pets, creatures), IMHO..

I chose the PSP Killzone Liberation and its Chapter 5 DLC for a fit example.. I believe it was given for free at its time, on a maintained webpage and the PSN.. It's just for illustrating, not going to check if it is still available there right now..

It is justified (legitimate) to make your game's UMD an ISO "rip", by the "one backup private copy" law, this is almost certain, however depending on certain country specific laws..

Now, imagine no more official means to get the Chapter 5 DLC..

Because offiicial servers / page went out of business, what is it MY fault to not have been around this time and missing it, being pointed fingers at as if I was a THIEF, for getting this DLC by downloading, say, a torrent..?

I will go and say, it is "justified" (with the ") to seek and to find online, by whatever means necessary, this Chapter 5 DLC for this one game. Whatever "people" are going to say..

Or using a CFW on my Vita for my Killzone Liberation, to play this WHOLE Chapter 5 DLC closing the game, which I know to be unavailable officially, on this handheld..?

That's my point, certain "cases" MAKES it "legitimate" to download from "other" sources, and I can't find any flaw in this situation to warrant a "piracy" claim..

Thanks for your time.

 

[DinohScene]

Piracy is bad.
It will remain bad forever.

Unless it's in the public domain.
Then it's fine.

 

[the_randomizer]

Piracy is bad.
It will remain bad forever.

Unless it's in the public domain.
Then it's fine.

Nevertheless, that won't and never has stopped people from doing it. Most who do it don't care about the illegalities In my case, I backed up all my gamecube and Wii games, but some of the ISO images were corrupt, so I downloaded another copy to replace the corrupted ISO images. That there makes me a filthy pirate bastard

 

[DinohScene]

Eh at least as you dun boast about it then it's fine I guess.
Pretty much everyone pirates.
It's just pirates that be proud of it and boast about it that makes people hate them.

 

[Vipera]

Depends.

Piracy should exist for:

- Old stuff that's overpriced (anything above 80Eur for a standard game) and impossible to find, and that no one wanted it to hit any virtual console. But they are still good enough to be played. Stuff like The Flinstones [NES] and Super Mario RPG [SNES]
- Old, unreleased stuff like Starfox 2 [SNES]

I am still looking for a PC game named Pirates. Because of its generic name, I can't find it on eBay, I can't find it on any fucking e-store. All I have is a goddamn demo from 98. I want that game. Should I pirate it? Too fucking bad, everyone is busy pirating the new Final Fantasy because mommy didn't give them enough money. No Pirates for me.
I am happy that overpriced and unreleased stuff like The Flinstones NES is getting pirated so much. But seriously, focus on stuff that would be lost forever unless someone has a copy on a hard disk.

 

[mightymuffy]

Oof Cyan, no beating around the bush with that first reply of yours - straight to the point! Have to completely agree with you though.

Personally, if I were in the same position as the OP with this game, then yes I'd pirate..... though fully aware that what I was doing was still wrong, and not trying to justify my deed in any way. Piracy can never be justified, end of. I'm not gonna flame the OP for his [probable] action here, but neither am I gonna give him two thumbs up.

 

[FAST6191]

Piracy is bad.
It will remain bad forever.

Unless it's in the public domain.
Then it's fine.

Ignoring the bad or not thing (unless we are doing legal readings then that is all very much up for debate) can you even pirate a public domain work? The only things I have there are trying to pass a public domain work off as your own (which can kind of be done) and the oddities that arise when making things public domain in the first place (IP licensing laws get kind of odd in some places when it comes to opening up your works to public domain).

 

[trumpet-205]

Rather than resort to piracy (which I agree with others, piracy is bad no mater the reason), a better way to tackle this is re-examining copyright laws.

In US, we have CTEA which extends corporate copyright law from 75 to 90 years. You can be sure that when deadline is approaching lobbyist will push for another law extending time once again.

 

[DinohScene]

Ignoring the bad or not thing (unless we are doing legal readings then that is all very much up for debate) can you even pirate a public domain work? The only things I have there are trying to pass a public domain work off as your own (which can kind of be done) and the oddities that arise when making things public domain in the first place (IP licensing laws get kind of odd in some places when it comes to opening up your works to public domain).

Music from the 1910's and 20's for example.
Or when an artist dies, then 70 years after his death, the works of the artist goes into the public domain.
Downloading a copy of the music for example would be pirating.
However, it's in the public domain so it's free to grab.

 

[FAST6191]

I am aware of the concept of public domain, however I, and more importantly most legal systems seem to have, had always defined pirating in the act of obtaining a copyrighted (to a lesser extent some patented stuff) work for which you do not have a license (or equivalent). If by definition a public domain work is not copyrighted or copyrightable then you can not pirate it by downloading it/copying it.

 

[RCJayce]

I think that the copyright lawa have to change, in some cases it's ridiculous. Old video games that are not in sale anymore and the Publisher/Devs doesn't want to re-launch (Virtual Console for ex) should be public domain, why? Simple it's a piece of human history, and it should preserve until the ends of times, and not be loss Just for a simple Dev/Pub that doesn't want to sell the game again.

Thanks

 

[Cyan]

I think some people on government understand that it should change for digital content, but lobbyist don't want that.
There are always interests taken in account, and nothing change.

Most countries have the 70 years time after the artist's death.
50 years in canada.
(5 to 25 for trademark, pictures, logo, etc.)

But not all countries have the "Public Domain".
France doesn't recognize this status (you can't publish something in public domain, you can't deliberately drop your moral rights on it, it only falls in public domain after the 70 years).
copyright is really hard and complex to understand and cover, each countries have its own view and laws.

 

[RCJayce]

I think some people on government understand that it should change for digital content, but lobbyist don't want that.
There are always interests taken in account, and nothing change.

Most countries have the 70 years time after the artist's death.
50 years in canada.
(5 to 25 for trademark, pictures, logo, etc.)

But not all countries have the "Public Domain".
France doesn't recognize this status (you can't publish something in public domain, you can't deliberately drop your moral rights on it, it only falls in public domain after the 70 years).
copyright is really hard and complex to understand and cover, each countries have its own view and laws.

First it should be a Global copyright law, and it will give 10 years to the creator of the game/song/movie etc the rights, after that 10 years your creation it will be public domain.

Sounds fair to me,

 

[Cyan]

programs or games, yes. it becomes obsolete after years (computer or console not sold anymore, not compatible on new hardware, etc. you can't launch 16bit MSDos games or program without specific equipment or emulators/VM)
song, no. Artists still sing their 10 years old songs.
Movie .. I don't know.

 

[Fat D]

First it should be a Global copyright law, and it will give 10 years to the creator of the game/song/movie etc the rights, after that 10 years your creation it will be public domain.

Sounds fair to me,

Ten years seems a short timeframe for some media. Also, I think copyright should distinguish between the "moral rights" and the commercial rights. "Circulating the tapes" is something that applies to the commercial rights, which should expire earlier than the moral rights. I think basing the protection duration of the commercial rights on factors like whether the original creator still produces the work should be a significant factor.

And Cyan, countries that do not give creators the right to relinquish copyright does not mean that there is no public domain. It just means public domain only applies to uncopyrightable and copyright-expired stuff. For everything else, there is ultrapermissive licensing like CC-Zero.

 

[RCJayce]

programs or games, yes. it becomes obsolete after years (computer or console not sold anymore, not compatible on new hardware, etc. you can't launch 16bit MSDos games or program without specific equipment or emulators/VM)
song, no. Artists still sing their 10 years old songs.
Movie .. I don't know.

They gain money from concerts singing those 10 year old songs or those "10 years of Cyan Music in one Blu-Ray" shit.

And movies, yea i don't know what to say

Ten years seems a short timeframe for some media. Also, I think copyright should distinguish between the "moral rights" and the commercial rights. "Circulating the tapes" is something that applies to the commercial rights, which should expire earlier than the moral rights. I think basing the protection duration of the commercial rights on factors like whether the original creator still produces the work should be a significant factor.

And Cyan, countries that do not give creators the right to relinquish copyright does not mean that there is no public domain. It just means public domain only applies to uncopyrightable and copyright-expired stuff. For everything else, there is ultrapermissive licensing like CC-Zero.

But still, they can abuse the part of the protection, re-realeasing the same content but with some shitty add-on remix.

It should be a part where it covers the original work only if the original creator has plans to make a release with more features (use your imagination here, my english is killing me) so that prevents the abuse using some lame changes of the original work