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



## RemixDeluxe (Aug 29, 2014)

Due to not having the game at a specific time, its a PC game and the devs/company releases this specific content during a period of time of their choosing. Because you werent around for that time you missed out, not even making it available even if you paid. Your able to play the game without this content however you would be missing a detailed part of the story that is related to the main storyline.

So in this scenario, would piracy be justified to get that missed content?

To mods: not asking for links, not asking how to get links, I'm just asking a question. Thank you.


----------



## Cyan (Aug 29, 2014)

justified : No.
End of the debate.

Piracy is never justified. piracy is piracy.
Because something is not available to you doesn't justify you can do illegal things.


It's exactly the same debate than users telling "but NES or Gamecube games are not sold anymore, developers don't do profit anymore, so it's fine!". No, it's not. It's piracy anyway. You don't have it, too bad for you. Acquiring it illegally IS piracy.

Same with physical copies of limited edition DVD/good/Anything.
You missed it, your fault. You will not go steal it.


----------



## RCJayce (Aug 29, 2014)

Well, of course is not justified, i mean they are the games devs they do what they want with their game, so if you misssed the content "it's your problem"


----------



## migles (Aug 29, 2014)

http://gbatemp.net/threads/piracy-common-myths.344858/

and migles gently used a broom to put the dust under the carpet where is the other dust
(no offence, just a little joke)

does this should be inside that thread? or does that thread answer your question?


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Aug 29, 2014)

Cyan said:


> justified : No.
> End of the debate.
> 
> Piracy is never justified. piracy is piracy.
> Because something is not available to you doesn't justify you can do illegal things.


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

Lets take for example some games that offer DLC as a preorder bonus incentive, often these DLC bonuses are not exclusive and the only cost to not preordering at launch would mean you would have to pay for it later down the road separately. With the situation I just mentioned, there is absolutely no way of ever getting to play that content, ever. Why should the player miss out, does he/she not deserve an equal chance at the content like everyone else?


----------



## Cyan (Aug 29, 2014)

Developer's or publisher's decision.
it had nothing to do with allowing you to download things illegaly at a later time by not providing them at the purchase date.

if you want to do it, do it, but don't justify your act by finding reasons to not call it piracy.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 29, 2014)

Until there is a better solution, yes, piracy is the best, and sometimes ONLY, means of preserving history.  Backup everything before Obama shuts down the internet.  Just in case you're an idiot, I was just kidding about Obama.


----------



## Joe88 (Aug 29, 2014)

You seem to be missing the point that it was an incentive to buy the game at the time


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Aug 29, 2014)

migles said:


> http://gbatemp.net/threads/piracy-common-myths.344858/
> 
> and migles gently used a broom to put the dust under the carpet where is the other dust
> (no offence, just a little joke)
> ...


None of those bullet points seem to match the topic at hand, however it was an interesting read to know someone at the temp got sued o_0



Joe88 said:


> You seem to be missing the point that it was an incentive to buy the game at the time


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.


----------



## RCJayce (Aug 29, 2014)

RemixDeluxe said:


> None of those bullet points seem to match the topic at hand, however it was an interesting read to know someone at the temp got sued o_0
> 
> 
> 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.


Hmmm, Game name and DLC Name please.


----------



## RemixDeluxe (Aug 29, 2014)

RCJayce said:


> Hmmm, Game name and DLC Name please.


I'm a bit embarrassed to talk about it >.<

It's an MMO on PC. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## RCJayce (Aug 29, 2014)

RemixDeluxe said:


> I'm a bit embarrassed to talk about it >.<
> 
> It's an MMO on PC. That's all I'm saying.


Hehe 

Now, you've tried to talk to the devs? Maybe if you explain you situation they can do something about it, so try talking to player support. If they refuse to sell it to you, well pirate it


----------



## Apex (Aug 29, 2014)

I'd say it's justified. Why should you be denied the right to participate in something? 

You've shown that you're willing to pay for it, and you still are unable to legally play it, so why deny yourself the experience? It's their loss.


----------



## Lumstar (Aug 29, 2014)

RemixDeluxe said:


> 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.


 
It happens. Once in a while content is never released to the public, say pre-order exclusives that stick to their word.


----------



## Cyan (Aug 29, 2014)

flash sales which happened 10 years ago should be free to everyone who missed it because it ended 10 years ago?
Every developers should send you a mail so you don't miss any DLC, just in case one day when you are interested in a random game you already bought them!

If it's a short time promotion, they don't have to make it endless and acquiring it after the promotion ended is not justifying piracy.
It's not the fault of the seller that you weren't informed. You weren't interested at the time of sale, that's all. you missed the time window. It doesn't give you the right to get it for free after that, or everyone will wait the end of the promotion and will get it for free by "justifying" it's not piracy if they didn't buy it when it was available.


The question here is not to know if it's piracy or not, but to know if you need to feel guilty or not about acquiring something without paying.
Choose to pirate or not, but if you do then don't try to find justification to not feel guilty. Assume.


----------



## SLiV3R (Aug 29, 2014)

i think it is justified! products that are more than a couple of years is always ok to pirate imo. 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!


----------



## Chrisssj2 (Aug 29, 2014)

Cyan said:


> justified : No.
> End of the debate.
> 
> Piracy is never justified. piracy is piracy.
> ...




You sir are totally insane. Biggest bullshit.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 29, 2014)

SLiV3R said:


> 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!



That might have been true, or at least accountants warped reality to make it true, some 10 years ago, however with various types of on demand publishing and downloadable stuff it seems many people are actually making more use of the lifetimes that copyright affords when it comes to long tail sales.


----------



## kristianity77 (Aug 29, 2014)

Piracy is bad no matter what way you look at it.  But I suppose everyone has ways of making themselves feel better about it. 

The only major relevent console I've ever had a hard drive full of games for was the 360.  But to make myself feel better about it, every single game I got after getting a ODE I bought new from a shop, and flogged it on day one after ripping it.  Total cost to me was about £5 per game after making a slight loss on selling second hand.  But it meant to me that at least as far as games were concerned, I personally, had paid full price


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Aug 29, 2014)

what about like the case of Konami's Arcade classic ports to XBLA and PSN?,,,namely X-Men and simpsons arcade? they were not ported to PC so the only way was to download it from the XBL store or PSN. Now due to licences bullshit, the demo and the full version unlocker have been permanently removed from the online store and can never be purchased or downloaded. The only way now is to have a hacked 360 or PS3 and download the PKG file. OR....bought it when it was commercially available in 2011. As buying the legit version is 100% impossible (buying the arcade board is outlandish) What about that hmm?*

I may already solved this situaton. Be it legit or not it doesn't matter...wanted to know your thoughts because it correlates with what is being talked about here.


----------



## Minox (Aug 29, 2014)

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 (Aug 29, 2014)

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



RemixDeluxe said:


> 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?



RemixDeluxe said:


> 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.



SLiV3R said:


> 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 (Aug 29, 2014)

Chrisssj2 said:


> 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 (Aug 29, 2014)

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 (Aug 29, 2014)

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 (Aug 29, 2014)

Piracy is bad.
It will remain bad forever.

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


----------



## the_randomizer (Aug 29, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> 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 (Aug 29, 2014)

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 (Aug 29, 2014)

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 (Aug 29, 2014)

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 (Aug 29, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> 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 (Aug 29, 2014)

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 (Aug 29, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> 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 (Aug 29, 2014)

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 (Aug 30, 2014)

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 (Aug 30, 2014)

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 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cyan said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Aug 30, 2014)

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 (Aug 30, 2014)

RCJayce said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cyan said:


> 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



Fat D said:


> 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


----------



## FailName (Aug 30, 2014)

I never like these threads because some people interpret, in this case "justified", as "legally justified," while for others try to make a completely different moral argument for "justification". Mixing the two leads to the idea that illegal = bad, but that not always true. As an example on a more harmless scale, jaywalking is illegal, but I wouldn't consider it absolutely bad and reprehensible to cross the street if the road is clear, even if there's a crosswalk 100 feet ahead.

In the case of piracy, of course it'll always be illegal, ever since it started to be used for people attacking and pillaging ships at sea, the word has been used for illegal acquisition of goods.  If it suddenly became legal, it probably wouldn't be called "piracy" anymore. I mean, downloading this free version of Moby Dick isn't piracy even though it's being sold for money elsewhere.

You can make all sorts of other arguments for or against some sort of moral justification of it, which I don't care to make. I guess I just mainly dislike people saying "It's illegal and bad, end of discussion."


----------



## Cyan (Aug 30, 2014)

if the author/developer is still in activity and still make profit with the program, it should still be copyrighted. (VC titles from nintendo, Amiga which re-licensed the mark and its catalog in 2013).
If the publisher/developers don't exits anymore, it should be public domain (old atari, etc.), or games not sold anymore (console titles from other firm than nintendo will never be published on VC)

all require a case by case scenario.
in ideal, the author should mention and re-copyright what he still want to exploits regularly (every 10 years for example) like marks/logo/names/web domains/etc. What is not renewed falls in public domain.


----------



## Fat D (Aug 30, 2014)

RCJayce said:


> 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


 
That is not abuse. That is the intention. If under this hypothetical new copyright, Nintendo had never made Super Mario Bros. remakes (sequels do not count, they are a new work), Super Mario Bros. would become free to distribute. However, if Nintendo still offered the cartridges and NES systems for sale to play them on, that would extend the protection. The real potential for abuse lies in the fact that they could offer the system for two billion of your favorite currency and the game for a few hundred million, effectively meaning they could stop manufacture and use a stockpile of ten consoles on sale to extend their protection indefinitely. There would need to be provisions to prevent this.


----------



## lemonkeyface (Sep 1, 2014)

imo it's a case of what you personally deem justifiable. if you've already paid for a game and it malfunctions and the game can be pirated instead it's different means for the same end and you've provided the devs with the cost to get the game through other means (if support is not available~). I would personally say it's fine in a case like that but it remains piracy. 

in the case of "the devs don't make a profit off of the game anymore" it's a little trickier imo. often times you will have platforms like steam that bring a game back (see: rollercoaster tycoon recently) or PSN (see: rayman, twisted metal, etc.) and they can still make a profit through those versions, but going to the lengths of getting a PSN-using platform just for that one game may go a little far (these games, more often than not, are cheap as fuck and you pay full price for the console~). once again, it's still piracy, but emulation exists and you can get far enough with that. I sometimes wish there were non-indie game devs that would open donation accounts so I can just emulate a game and donate the retail value, but this is not the case so yeah.

tl;dr: piracy is piracy, but apply your own set of values to whether you pirate or not.


----------



## Chrisssj2 (Sep 6, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> 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.


 

I disagree 100%. I have an expansive world view most people don't have.
Im for anarchy.
So I guess I shouldn't bother explaining it to people like you, because I know exactly where people are at who make these comments. 

Also "cringing" "bowing" to some "authority" is exactly the problem in today's world.
I only pay respect to myself and common sense, and anyone aligned to it. 
Everyone I treat the same.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Sep 6, 2014)

If something can't be legally obtained, then yes I think pirating it can be justified. After all there is no other option, it's not like you could buy it.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 6, 2014)

Cyan said:


> justified : No.
> End of the debate.
> 
> Piracy is never justified. piracy is piracy.
> ...


 

Interesting.. Steal ? How ? Then why did people dumped their own games that they purchased and share with public anyway ? That's why many people dumps their games so it is not steal. Many PS3 games dumps hit the internet.I know that law said its illegal but it doesn't make a sense since people buy their games and dumps their own games to share. Its still not a steal.


----------



## Cyan (Sep 6, 2014)

I meant "steal it to someone who bought it before you. You don't go to their home to get the limited and numbered edition DVD box you missed".
You missed the sale, that's all. You will not do illegal things to acquire it anyway and calling it "justified".

If you do illegal things, then do it knowingly. don't try to call it justified to not feel guilty of your action. Assume your acts.


----------



## ov3rkill (Sep 6, 2014)

piracy is piracy.
justified is justified.

that's the end of it.
no more, no less. haha


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 6, 2014)

I am not sure I follow you. You mean if someone bought it before me and dumped the game KNOWING that they intend to share it no matter what and I downloaded it is still a steal ?


----------



## Cyan (Sep 6, 2014)

It's piracy if it's a data you download that you didn't buy.
it's stealing if it's an object you take from someone else.

I used the word "steal" to talk about a DVD box. not the riped movie from the DVD shared on internet by the buyer.

You wouldn't "justify" (And that's the subject here "being justified!", not being illegal or not), the act of stealing an object from someone else because you missed the limited number sale.
Why would you need to justify yourself for downloading something you didn't buy legally? don't try to "justify" your action.

The fact that you ask yourself If doing something is justified already prove that you know it's not correct. You wouldn't ask if it's justified to do it otherwise.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 6, 2014)

FailName said:


> I never like these threads because some people interpret, in this case "justified", as "legally justified," while for others try to make a completely different moral argument for "justification". Mixing the two leads to the idea that illegal = bad, but that not always true. As an example on a more harmless scale, jaywalking is illegal, but I wouldn't consider it absolutely bad and reprehensible to cross the street if the road is clear, even if there's a crosswalk 100 feet ahead.
> 
> In the case of piracy, of course it'll always be illegal, ever since it started to be used for people attacking and pillaging ships at sea, the word has been used for illegal acquisition of goods. If it suddenly became legal, it probably wouldn't be called "piracy" anymore. I mean, downloading this free version of Moby Dick isn't piracy even though it's being sold for money elsewhere.
> 
> You can make all sorts of other arguments for or against some sort of moral justification of it, which I don't care to make. I guess I just mainly dislike people saying "It's illegal and bad, end of discussion."


 

I guess I'm a bit late responding to this but...

That's the case for most public domain content, but sold public content contains non-open source content. I can download Night of the Living Dead off plenty of sites but the DVD might contain bonus footage, interviews, etc. Not to mention you're still paying for manufacturing costs so you don't have to go through all the effort of designing menus, scene selection, plus making the disc and box art and all that stuff.


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 6, 2014)

Chrisssj2 said:


> I disagree 100%. I have an expansive world view most people don't have.
> Im for anarchy.
> So I guess I shouldn't bother explaining it to people like you, because I know exactly where people are at who make these comments.
> 
> ...


 

Keep that positive mental attitude up, I'm sure it'll take you far!  Enjoy.


----------



## Chrisssj2 (Sep 6, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> Keep that positive mental attitude up, I'm sure it'll take you far!  Enjoy.


aaahh the good old ' you are being negative bullcrap  
 
Actually people who do understand realize it is very positive. 
More positive then this false system of misery can ever bring you.  (Oh look im complacent I got such a guuwd lifez....!!)
(you have to out it like it is!)

Quit using the psychology shield of "youre negative" when bullshit is being destroyed by truth.

That is all.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 6, 2014)

Cyan said:


> It's piracy if it's a data you download that you didn't buy.
> it's stealing if it's an object you take from someone else.
> 
> I used the word "steal" to talk about a DVD box. not the riped movie from the DVD shared on internet by the buyer.
> ...


 

For Law, perhaps but for people to share their own games they purchased to dumped is not a steal and not a piracy anyway.


----------



## Cyan (Sep 6, 2014)

don't play dumb (edit: not calling you dumb, but saying you are doing it on purpose). You clearly know what this discussion is about and what I meant.
The piracy is toward the seller/developer/publisher who expect money, of course it's not toward the buyer dumping the content of what he bought to distribute it illegally.
It's not because someone intended to distribute it illegally before buying the product that it magically becomes legal to share and not illegal to download.

We are not asking if taking for free what's given to you for free is stealing.
We are talking about acquiring a sold product by illegal methods and calling it justified because it's not sold anymore.


----------



## TemplarGR (Sep 6, 2014)

Cyan said:


> justified : No.
> End of the debate.
> 
> Piracy is never justified. piracy is piracy.
> ...


 
Sometimes people are very funny and of course, WRONG!

Let me ask you a question. Let's say that on a private property, you see a dying man in need of medical attention. To tresspass on his property is illegal. What would you do? Would you illegaly enter his property to help him, or you would say "tresspassing is never justified".

Let me remind you that tresspassing into someone's home is a way more serious offense than simply using a COPY of an intellectual property without paying...

And of course let me also remind you ,the cliche at this point, "piracy isn't equal to theft"...

Of course, you could answer that tresspassing for a benevolent cause is something good, and using intellectual property without proper authorization (that is what piracy is actually about) is just a selfish need for recreation, but in principle, they are the same. In both cases, you choose to ignore a law and in doing so you are doing no harm, while on the contrary something good comes out of it, whether it is the saving of one's life or simply the joy a person can derive for experiencing something not sold in stores anymore...

In my personal opinion, and based on the simple fact that for the last decade gaming is all about money and most of the money goes to people irrelevant to the creation of games, while gaming is becoming more expensive and with less content and quality,, so i couldn't care less about the million dollar bonuses of some executive in EA, i say that the answer to the OP question is what your concience says about it.

If you are rich, enjoy a game, and don't pay, you are without justification.

If you are poor and couldn't afford much, to my eyes you wouldn't be able to pay anyway, why not play if you can? The developer loses absolutely nothing in your case, NOTHING. It's a choice between abandoning gaming altogether and just pirating. In fact, by pirating the developer gets something GOOD out of it, you will certainly use word of mouth and promote the game, and if you later have more money you could spend them on his next games, so really it's a win win situation.

The same goes if the game is no longer sold. Only good could come out of it, because if you like the games you will certainly advertise a developer's more recent offerings, and maybe even pay for them. The developer has nothing to gain from stopping you.

So, in general, if you feel you are really stealing someone his well deserved money, then piracy is wrong. If nothing is lost, if you couldn't buy the game anyway, then piracy, while still illegal technically, is not that much of a crime.

Of course, people who pay much for games will always hate those of us "freeloaders". It's ok, it doesn't matter what other people think...


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 6, 2014)

Cyan said:


> don't play dumb. You clearly know what this discussion is about and what I meant.
> The piracy is toward the seller/developer/publisher who expect money, of course it's not toward the buyer dumping the content of what he bought to distribute it illegally.
> It's not because someone intended to distribute it illegally before buying the product that it magically becomes legal to share and not illegal to download.
> 
> ...


 

Oh, that? That's true. Sorry for the confusion. You are absolutely right.

EDIT: They should sell it for a cheaper.. Over 60 dollars is SILLY AND GREEDY! I REFUSED to buy it.. THanks to the sharing and dumped. Thats enough for me. Sorry to developer and publisher. A cheap will make me buy it.. A expensive will make me back off and get a dumped instead!


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Sep 6, 2014)

I have a question(s)

If I rip data from a game and give that data to a friend to play and he copies the data to a friend and the process goes on and on to about say 10-15 other people, is that considered piracy

Or

If I rip data from my game and give that same disc game to my friend and he rips data and he gives it to his friend and the process goes on and on to about 10-15, is that still considered piracy


----------



## Cyan (Sep 6, 2014)

templarGR:
The question was: Is it justified to do something you clearly know is wrong. (that person wouldn't have asked if he didn't think it was wrong).


if you put happiness about acquiring a data or playing a game on the same level as worth of life, then it's probably justified to acquire what you need by any means you deem a necessity to not die. of course, if you value life. because it can also become debatable if, what's or who's worth it or not.


Like I said few times already, just assume your acts.
don't try to find a justification to do something you *think* (or know) you shouldn't do.
You want to do something, then do it.


----------



## Fat D (Sep 6, 2014)

Both are copyright violations in every sense of the word since you are spreading the content without permission from the copyright holder. If you give the original away, you must also hand over or destroy all legitimate copies you have made unless you have an extra license.


----------



## TyBlood13 (Sep 6, 2014)

Just gonna say I doubt pirating an MMO thing is gonna work anyway


----------



## Tomy Sakazaki (Sep 6, 2014)

Let's remember that piracy is a illegal act even if you don't charge money for distributing the data in most countries (be they ISO, ROM images, burned CD/DVD/BluRay, copied K7, copied VHS, copy of books, etc).


BlackWizzard17 said:


> ...
> If I rip data from a game and give that data to a friend to play and he copies the data to a friend and the process goes on and on to about say 10-15 other people, is that considered piracy


That's piracy from the 1st time that you gave the data to your friend, and you can be prosecuted for distributing the pirated data, you lose any rights to claim fair use, even in countries that permit you to use ways to crack DRM to obtain the backup copy. Also everyone on the chain that gave copies of this data can be prosecuted for distribution.



BlackWizzard17 said:


> ...
> If I rip data from my game and give that same disc game to my friend and he rips data and he gives it to his friend and the process goes on and on to about 10-15, is that still considered piracy


 
That's piracy from the moment you gave away the licensing rights along with the original medium. Like Fat D said, you must destroy all your backed up data (even if they were created under fair use rights) because you doesn't have the license anymore. In theory some media doesn't allow you to transfer the rights of use of the licensed data (to legally combat second hand sales), but since it's impractical and you aren't selling a pirated copy few people actually got prosecuted doing this.


And I think that anarchy should [edit]NOT[/edit] automatically justify piracy, anarchy is about destroying the concept of authority (someone that controls the order) it's a political philosophy, not a economical system (you can try to have a anarchic civilization that is still capitalist, you can abolish the capitalism - an with it the concept of copyrights - without destroying the authority).
Not saying that's wrong to advocate anarchy and destroying the concept of copyrights at same time, but they are separated things, separated theories that can work together.
But one thing that doesn't allow anarchy to work in actual world is that people won't let go the concept of private property, specially because without laws and their enforcers, people will start to rob at every given chance, and they will try to protect their property with any option that they get, including murdering people.
One thing that I like to say to newcomers to anarchy is "think well before asking for anarchy, because if you get it, everybody will".


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Sep 6, 2014)

Tomy Sakazaki said:


> Let's remember that piracy is a illegal act even if you don't charge money for distributing the data in most countries (be they ISO, ROM images, burned CD/DVD/BluRay, copied K7, copied VHS, copy of books, etc).
> 
> That's piracy from the 1st time that you gave the data to your friend, and you can be prosecuted for distributing the pirated data, you lose any rights to claim fair use, even in countries that permit you to use ways to crack DRM to obtain the backup copy. Also everyone on the chain that gave copies of this data can be prosecuted for distribution.
> 
> ...


 
Ok thanks for the info, I knew there was a reason why it was still piracy I just couldn't think of it.


----------



## Smuff (Sep 6, 2014)

If you want to do it, go ahead and do it. Enough with the cry-for-attention posting. Just accept that it's wrong. Oddly enough, whether someone on an internet forum (originally devoted to aiding piracy - Ironic much?) thinks you are justified or not doesn't make one tiny scrap of difference to its legal definition. So fuck 'em.


----------



## grossaffe (Sep 6, 2014)

Anarchy?  *sigh*


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 6, 2014)

*tl;dr* Piracy is never legally justified. It's morally justified if you already own a given game, but didn't _(or couldn't due to DRM or the medium)_ make a backup and your original copy is broken beyond repair. Remember, you never purchase _"just a cartridge"_ or _"just a disc"_, you purchase a license allowing you to use one copy of a given piece of software - make backups of said copy whenever you can _(and if the law allows you to, which it should)_.


----------



## Hop2089 (Sep 6, 2014)

Sounds like the case with BS Zelda and Radical Dreamers and yes it is justified.


----------



## tbb043 (Sep 6, 2014)

Copyright laws are a joke, that's the only justification that should be needed (not that I personally ever needed justification). But yes, extra justified in cases like this or with store exclusive preorder bonuses and bullshit like that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 6, 2014)

tbb043 said:


> Copyright laws are a joke, that's the only justification that should be needed (not that I personally ever needed justification). But yes, extra justified in cases like this or with store exclusive preorder bonuses and bullshit like that.


Why? The preorder bonuses are supposed to entice you to buy the game in a store that offers them, they're genuine business practices. What makes you think that you're entitled to acquire content that you didn't actually purchase?


----------

