"If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing" is a stupid quote and I'm sick of hearing it

  • Thread starter Thread starter SecureBoot
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 5,388
  • Replies Replies 87
  • Likes Likes 17
By all means, PLEASE show me in the EULA where Nintendo walked back their course of action, because last I checked the verbiage was still there to date. I will happily stand corrected if you can show me, IN THEIR EULA, that they won't try to brick a console.
The whole point was that a modified console shifts it out of scope of Nintendo's updates, that should you update while running it with a modification, it can lead to your console becoming a brick. All it takes is one bit of one byte out of place to do it. They don't remotely brick your console. You choose to apply an update that can brick it. And the situation about using an unauthorized device doesn't "brick" your console either. They ban the console from going online on their end via its unique signature.

The thing about this claim of remote bricking is that so far, nobody has actually experienced it. They claim they are, but what is actually happening is people's consoles are getting banned. Not the same thing, and no amount of wordplay will change that. Just like with "preservation". It's not that at all, but the word is used to attempt favor.
 
It's a stupid quote. I pirate, but i often find the opinions of other pirates often pretty cringe. This may be my prime example.

I bought cake but it expired before i ate it. Guess i didn't own cake.
I bought a movie ticket but didn't get to take the movie roll home with me.
I bought insurance but didn't have an accident. I therefore didn't have insurance and should get a refund.
I paid a sex worker, therefore i... own her?

And so on. Buying isn't owning in many examples. Here's another quote of wisdom:

Buyer beware

Fucking serious...pirating is easy in that it doesn't require responsibilities. It works. Or not. Or it infects your pc with a virus or whatever. Regardless, you've spent nothing.
Buying means you should inform yourself of what you buy. Like... Not too long ago, valve was forced to admit the truth: they don't sell games. Haven't done so in years if not decades. They sell licenses to play games. If you think they're going to host everything on their store for eternity, you're a fool. And they care for their customers, unlike others.

Regardless... Buy from gog if it bothers you. Or build your own game and distribute it however you want to. But if you insist on wanting to play something that relies on a server that is hosted by a company that has no obligation to keep it open forever, it's not realistic to expect they'll never shut it down.
(yes, I'm in favor of forcing them to make the game available for offline use in The crew's case. But the way it is, it's as if that example of corporate greed is an excuse to compensate to pirate anything you never bought in the first place).
 
Last edited by Taleweaver,
Piracy is theft. I know. I've been stealing gamez since 1987.

🏴‍☠️I fly the flag proudly🏴‍☠️ and am embarrassed when I see imbiciles fellow pirates argue that either is not not theft (for one of about 30 different ludicrous reasons) or that it is justified (for one of about 30 different ludicrous reasons). Man up and own what you are doing. You are NOT preservationists. You are NOT leading a crusade against greedy corporations. You are a fcking thief!

Just like me.
Just embrace it and move on.
 
companies like Nintendo are incredibly good at preserving, not just the finalized games, but the projects themselves, from source code to assets, from all the way back to at least the NES days.
Some companies are good at preserving. Many more of them are not. Square in particular has been featured in numerous stories about inadequately preserving their development tools.
 
Some companies are good at preserving. Many more of them are not. Square in particular has been featured in numerous stories about inadequately preserving their development tools.
Yes. I didn't say all. I said "companies like..". In fact, the one you mention in particular went to Nintendo to regain their old projects, such as Trials of Mana for the Mana collection.
 
Piracy is theft. I know. I've been stealing gamez since 1987.
Noob :P)

I bet you were doing it long before that though, like you never taped a song playing on the radio? They sold tape decks for that very purpose. Then why bring out a video recorder if they didn't want you to record movies, or cd writers/dvd and blueray writers. Sold blank discs, mp3 players, etc.

Piracy has been going on since the beginining of time. Rich people stole other peoples inventions and that's even worse than piracy. People stole other peoples labour, that's why slavery was invented thousands of years ago. People will always try to get get things for free, especially someone with limited means that sees someone else that has something they don't. This is one of the very basic traits of human nature and it's not going to change in the next thousand years. So piracy is a thing, it always has been and it always will be.

Ask yourself what's worse, some poor sod with barely 2 pennies to rub together downloading a game or someone like Jeff Bezos paying some worker a pittance so he can buy another 127 meter superyacht earned from the sweat of his employees.

I watched a documentary the other day about the creators of the game Lemmings, they were talking about how they used to pirate games and so did everyone else in the game industry and I'd bet there's not a single game dev or software dev in the world that hasn't downloaded a movie or mp3 or computer software or an ebook at some point.
 
The main point of the quote is to highlight the difference in ownership between something like buying a book or CD and a modern game. These days companies can remotely disable access to things you bought on a whim, with no prior notice, and no ability for the buyer to object.
Imagine the same being done to a book you own, the company should just be allowed to enter your home and take the copy back?

The argument that it's just part of the TOS is also pretty nonsensical because it is a one sided contract and generally written to the benefit of the company only, just take that one Disney thing recently where the Disney lawyers argued someone couldn't sue them for their spouse dying at a disney world park because they signed up for a Disney+ trial account some years prior.
Maybe the TOS shouldn't be allowed to contain a clause that the seller can just unilaterally revoke the license on a whim without compensation to the buyer.
 
The main point of the quote is to highlight the difference in ownership between something like buying a book or CD and a modern game. These days companies can remotely disable access to things you bought on a whim, with no prior notice, and no ability for the buyer to object.
Imagine the same being done to a book you own, the company should just be allowed to enter your home and take the copy back?

The argument that it's just part of the TOS is also pretty nonsensical because it is a one sided contract and generally written to the benefit of the company only, just take that one Disney thing recently where the Disney lawyers argued someone couldn't sue them for their spouse dying at a disney world park because they signed up for a Disney+ trial account some years prior.
Maybe the TOS shouldn't be allowed to contain a clause that the seller can just unilaterally revoke the license on a whim without compensation to the buyer.
I'm not arguing against any of the sentiments behind the quote. Just that the actual statement is nonsensical when interpreted literally.

You're right that the TOS *shouldn't* be allowed to revoke access, but it doesn't change the fact that it does. Doesn't matter if the TOS is one sided or favors the vendor more than the consumer, you still signed it
 
Fourth, it's just an excuse to justify your piracy. Don't get me wrong, I have done my fair share of piracy,
Becoming a lawyer to make infinite money glitch to afford everything takes knowledge and skill and money.

Circumventing DRM takes knowledge and skill and money for a solid PC/mod chips/install of those.

Some people take route A, some take route B, but at large 99% consider route A easier as it also covers lots of other expenses to boot.
Post automatically merged:

The main point of the quote is to highlight the difference in ownership between something like buying a book or CD and a modern game. These days companies can remotely disable access to things you bought on a whim, with no prior notice, and no ability for the buyer to object.
Imagine the same being done to a book you own, the company should just be allowed to enter your home and take the copy back?

The argument that it's just part of the TOS is also pretty nonsensical because it is a one sided contract and generally written to the benefit of the company only, just take that one Disney thing recently where the Disney lawyers argued someone couldn't sue them for their spouse dying at a disney world park because they signed up for a Disney+ trial account some years prior.
Maybe the TOS shouldn't be allowed to contain a clause that the seller can just unilaterally revoke the license on a whim without compensation to the buyer.
Argument OUGHT to be for people to READ the ToS and simply vote with their supposedly hard-earned cash, while educating themselves in used PCs and tons of abandonware backlogs they could indulge instead of modern slop. Hell, for phys media argument - its not like game/movie creators also own DVD production, burning, and packaging plants in-house, and since thats outsourced simply apply the same logic and purchase your pirated media usb drives from underground dealers. DVD releases of the past mostly fed the physical distributors anyway.
 
Last edited by Skv0ra,
Where does this expectation of the online service being available forever even come from? Every game I've bought that has an online component says "Online features may be terminated at any time." on the box. Surely that's not too much text to read?

Preservation is just an excuse. No one needs to preserve a AAA Nintendo Switch game that comes out next week.
try before you buy :creep:
An actually good argument for piracy, especially since so few games have demos. And the ones that exist are not that good either.
 
The mass majority of folks that claim preservation to justify piracy are only doing it for themselves, not actual preservation. You don't need thousands of people preserving the same digital thing. The handful of people that actually try to do it for preservation purposes don't pick and choose what they preserve. They attempt to preserve ALL of it, and spend the money to have the means to do it. They think Bible Adventures is just as important to preserve as Ocarina of Time.

As it is, companies like Nintendo are incredibly good at preserving, not just the finalized games, but the projects themselves, from source code to assets, from all the way back to at least the NES days. Those have no real risk of being lost to time, but folks pirate those games anyways because..... and this is another part of the situation, folks don't have "access" to the games, and in many case, in the way they want. Ocarina of Time is accessible today on Nintendo's more recent platforms, but via NSO which has a monthly/yearly cost to it. Folks don't like that, so they think it's okay for them to pirate it. They complain how they can't get it like back in the day with Virtual Console, yet the numbers showed folks didn't care about that either, and personally, that was likely because they were pirating at that time too.

It's really just entitlement of people, who think they should get what they want, the way they want it, at the price they want it (which is typically for $0).
I spent most of my teenager years buying bulk games and dumping them ,i have thousand of cds and games cause i own a video game shop.I also have tons of warez games ,full sets worth terabyte of games.never played them,its just taking space in my hdds.I only play SF3,SF4 And SF6 along tetris and ocassionaly Shadow of mordor nemesis system.All this to say that a pirated game does not equal a game bought from publishers .
 
If Trump was against "piracy" all you would be for it then.
Just sayin!!!
His seizing of oil tankers from Venezuela and Iran is literal piracy (using 'literal' in its original learning here, not as an exaggeration).

Edit: do note i wrote this before I heard about the latest seizing of an Iranian ship...
 
Last edited by Taleweaver,
  • Like
Reactions: SecureBoot
I spent most of my teenager years buying bulk games and dumping them ,i have thousand of cds and games cause i own a video game shop.I also have tons of warez games ,full sets worth terabyte of games.never played them,its just taking space in my hdds.I only play SF3,SF4 And SF6 along tetris and ocassionaly Shadow of mordor nemesis system.All this to say that a pirated game does not equal a game bought from publishers .
At least you're honest about it and don't make excuses. I pirate retro games, but I mainly play the ones I already own on their relevant systems. I had recently fixed my NES and SNES, but even after that, it just wasn't convenient to play them. Old composite connection, wired controller that need some work done..... I bought an AYN Thor could I could compile all my games from multiple systems into one unit. That's just one convenience out of many.

With all these other people justifying their piracy with things like corporate greed and such, I simply think... "You're going to do it anyways, so just do it. We don't need to hear a sob story and/or justifying with lies."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChronosNotashi
you still signed it
Sure, but that's surprisingly meaningless and isn't backed by some divine power. If they can't be bothered to make a fair and ethically sound contract I can't be bothered to honor it. If they reserve themselves the right to cut off access at any time without compensation I reserve myself the right to gain access without compensation.
As Gaben put it so nicely, piracy is a service issue, not a financial one.

Argument OUGHT to be for people to READ the ToS and simply vote with their supposedly hard-earned cash, while educating themselves in used PCs and tons of abandonware backlogs they could indulge instead of modern slop. Hell, for phys media argument - its not like game/movie creators also own DVD production, burning, and packaging plants in-house, and since thats outsourced simply apply the same logic and purchase your pirated media usb drives from underground dealers. DVD releases of the past mostly fed the physical distributors anyway.
I'm pretty sure the last triple-A game I bought / played was cyberpunk on gog, without DRM. Otherwise it's mostly just indie games or retro stuff, with the only pirated games being ones that are either exorbitant to buy thanks to scalpers or unavailable entirely thanks to a dead digital shop.
 
Becoming a lawyer to make infinite money glitch to afford everything takes knowledge and skill and money.

Circumventing DRM takes knowledge and skill and money for a solid PC/mod chips/install of those.

Some people take route A, some take route B, but at large 99% consider route A easier as it also covers lots of other expenses to boot.
Post automatically merged:


Argument OUGHT to be for people to READ the ToS and simply vote with their supposedly hard-earned cash, while educating themselves in used PCs and tons of abandonware backlogs they could indulge instead of modern slop. Hell, for phys media argument - its not like game/movie creators also own DVD production, burning, and packaging plants in-house, and since thats outsourced simply apply the same logic and purchase your pirated media usb drives from underground dealers. DVD releases of the past mostly fed the physical distributors anyway.
Isn't the ToS mostly shown after you have purchased your gameware?
Most of the times, you have already committed yourself financially.

Specially console gameware. You get the disc, but no one is showing you a doc with an accept button.
 
There seems to be an increasing amount of fervor behind digital preservation. I see a lot of content about media destruction and revocation of purchased content. Without fail, the top comments on videos like this are "If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing". A nice-sounding sentiment for sure, and one that people seem to rally around to justify their digital looting, but if you apply any amount common sense to the quote, it entirely falls apart as nonsense.

First of all, obviously piracy is not stealing. That's why those two actions are named different things. If piracy was stealing, you would just call it theft. You can remove the first part of the sentence and it remains equally as true. "Piracy isn't stealing". What piracy still is is the circumvention of payment to the rights holder for a product that they have the right to sell.

Second, lets look at the first half of the quote. "If buying isn't owning". I want to be clear, I strongly feel that there should always be a path to DRM-free, non-revocable access of media. However, in a world that isn't the case, prefacing that thought with the word "if" does more to shine a light on the fact that you were too lazy to read the Ts&Cs before making a purchase. The information that you do not have complete ownership is right there in the Terms and Conditions and you actively decided to purchase the product anyway. Now you're turning around and lying about it like no one told you this information. It's like buying a meal at a restaurant where the menu lists "soft drinks are non-refillable" and then getting pissed that your soft drink is, in fact, non-refillable. Should the restaurant make the drink refillable to improve the customer experience? Probably, but that doesn't change the fact that you were informed of what you were getting into when you made the order.

Third, the two clauses of the quote have practically no correlation. Buying isn't owning because these are the terms set by the vendor. If these terms weren't explicitly set, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The vendor does not set terms that say piracy is not theft. If you want this to be true, then that would have to be negotiated by you, the customer, with the vendor prior to purchase. By making the purchase, you agree to the terms whether you like it or not. You don't get to retroactively decide you don't like the terms any more and change them.

Fourth, it's just an excuse to justify your piracy. Don't get me wrong, I have done my fair share of piracy, but piracy is not a clear or sustainable path to preservation. Piracy is often the only way some media is preserved, but that preservation is contingent on someone caring enough about the media to make a backup available for others. My guess is that the majority of people screaming this mantra, are just trying to absolve themselves of the guilt that pirating brings them.

That's all. That's the tweet. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
T&C aren't written for people to read. If companies really wanted people to read them, they wouldn't be 20 pages of legalese. Nobody reads that shit. Nobody is expected to read that shit. This isn't a mistake on the consumer's part or them being "too lazy". Companies intentionally make the T&C as unreadable as possible because you can't object to what you don't read. That's on the companies.
 
Isn't the ToS mostly shown after you have purchased your gameware?
Most of the times, you have already committed yourself financially.

Specially console gameware. You get the disc, but no one is showing you a doc with an accept button.
You agree to the license agreement when you buy the hardware the plays games

T&C aren't written for people to read. If companies really wanted people to read them, they wouldn't be 20 pages of legalese. Nobody reads that shit. Nobody is expected to read that shit. This isn't a mistake on the consumer's part or them being "too lazy". Companies intentionally make the T&C as unreadable as possible because you can't object to what you don't read. That's on the companies.
I mean yeah, the point is they don't want you to read them, but that doesn't change the fact that you blindly agreed to terms you weren't familiar with
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skv0ra
You agree to the license agreement when you buy the hardware the plays games
So, by the time I even see the agreement for the first time and finally have a chance to read it, I already agreed? And that's somehow not a problem?
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum