Download Services-Piracy or Justice?

[jschild]

If you go into Best Buy and steal a copy, you prevent both Best Buy and Microsoft money they deserve, thus you stole from them.

If you distribute copies of the game for free and those people would have bought a legit copy otherwise, then you are stealing since you once again prevented them from making money.

Please tell me what the difference is between not giving someone money for work and preventing someone from getting money for their work.

And in that previous example, then you would be fine with being laid off and not having a job because of those free copies being distributed?

[myrealnameisjon]

As I have aged, my opinion on this topic has changed. Part of what has led to that was an increase in my income (and it's not honestly that much: I'm a graduate student!), and in return for that a feeling of responsibility: when I'm honest with myself, I *can* afford to buy the few games I play (one of which is Spore), and so to *not* buy the games I play is irresponsible at best.

The issue for many people, and for the past-tense me, is that while it is illegal to pirate software (or music or TV shows, as it were), I continued to fool myself into believing it was ethical. Therefore, I was breaking the unjust law for the greater good, and was justified for doing so. As an amateur artist myself and friend of many professional artists/software engineers, I simply cannot believe this anymore.

However, I do strongly believe that the distribution models for many of these products needs to change. Whenever possible, I prefer to buy my software and music directly from the artists. Doing so encourages a revision in the distribution model; pirating does not.

(In the following statements, I'm not being direct to any person but rather mean them in a generic sense to those who believe that piracy is "ok").

The point of pirating something is to get it for free/easier, not to "rob" them of money.

Ask yourself seriously whether your obtaining the object for free/easier is justified. Software, music, and movies are all luxury items. If you want to believe that you have the same rights to them in taking them rather than purchasing them, then it's time for you to believe that everybody deserves the same access to non-luxury items (such as health care). Unfortunately, even believing in such a socialist utopia will not change the *law*.

Going into Best Buy and stealing a copy of Halo = Stealing.
Having your friend make a copy of Halo for you = Not stealing.

Ask yourself who benefits from this line of thought. This perspective, one I used to adhere to, is founded on short-sighted assumptions. You're not being a revolutionary; you're not "sticking it to the man." You're asking other people to subsidize your desires. How do you think that makes artists feel? How do you think that makes those of us who want to be responsible feel when they have to pay double to cover the cost of you?

If you cannot afford a game, do not play it. If you can afford a game, buy it. If you buy it and don't like it, sell it on eBay to someone who will, or give it to someone as a gift. No matter how you cut it, piracy is illegal and, in my opinion, irresponsible.

[Draconious]

Remember when you "purchase" a game, or other software, you are not buying the software, you are buying a license to use it... so letting someone barrow it, or installing it on a second PC is actually illegal. Read the Fine Print before you accept .


A lot of software licenses and their support from their company expires in 7 years, so it then becomes somewhat leagal to copy and distribute, even windows... one more reason why new versions are released so frequently. Someone told me it was leagal to copy windows 95 now if anyone wanted too... not sure how true that is.

[jschild]

But do you consider it "stealing" to let someone borrow a game or book. Enspecially if they do not purchase the game or book because of that?

[myrealnameisjon]

Originally Posted by jschild

But do you consider it "stealing" to let someone borrow a game or book. Enspecially if they do not purchase the game or book because of that?

By definition, "borrowing" means that one person is using the item while the other person is temporarily giving up use of that item. Doing so for software means that only one license is in use at a time. I haven't read the fine print on enough software agreements to know whether that means it's legal or not.

For books: certainly it's legal. Libraries, for example, exist for the sole purpose of perpetuating that. I dare you to read a book at the same time as your friend, though. That's the big issue here: a license is an authorization to use/enjoy the product. If one person is refraining from using that license so that another person uses it, that is fine.

[Grungebob]

I wonder how blockbuster fits in there, renting the dvd's and videos. It seems as though they are freely allowed to make money doing something that would be considered illegal by those standards.

[jschild]

My example though, has somewhat to do with what I originally posted. Because there was no available demo, and my lack of trust with Bethesda (since they did not do the original Fallout's and the games after the first 2 were bad) I decided to download the torrent to check it out. My intent was not to rip off Bethesda but to check their work out. If I had a 360 or PS3, I would have rented it. If there had been a demo, I would have downloaded it (in fact, the starting area is perfect for a demo).

If you let someone borrow a game, and they complete it, you potentially prevented a sale. Would you consider that stealing?

In my case, I downloaded a torrent (having no other option to "try" it out) and liked it. I told my wife to get it for my birthday or Valentine's Day. I now plan to buy the DLC once I beat the main game. Did I steal from Bethesda? Did I "steal" more than someone who let someone borrow their Fallout 3 game and then they beat it but never buy it, unlike me?

[Sweetcurse]

Originally Posted by jschild

But do you consider it "stealing" to let someone borrow a game or book. Enspecially if they do not purchase the game or book because of that?

That is an interesting point. I guess it comes to whether you are owning the software or the license to use it. I guess it falls under end user license agreement, same for renting it. You can't unless you pay to be able to do it, just like doing a public show of a movie. That is of course unless it's entirely for educational purposes and even then you are restricted. Same old issue. A difference with books though is that once you pass it along, you do not have anymore. So in essence you'd have to delete the files from your PC, then pass the game along. It's definitely murky though. How does fair use work into all that? Even the examples of lawsuits I saw there seem complex and controversial. Going back to books, if you photocopy the book and pass it along then it's the same problem. You see the difference?

How does this work with selling a game you paid for? Although in that case you are msotly taking a loss since it's a used copy. But what about buying a game for the specific purpose of reselling it at a higher price. I recently bought a game and I'm keeping it sealed. I know the game will increase in value and I'll make a profit. But since I'm not keeping a copy of it, it's not infringement right?

[Aldin]

Hmmm, I'm interested in weighing in, but I don't have answers, really, just a couple of comments.

1) I don't think anyone has a right to try something before they buy it. I do think that any company which does not allow customers to try their product in some sort of risk-free fashion risks several problems the worst of which is that they will alienate many potential consumers.

2) I have always been a big fan of swag - especially collectible swag. For the price of a mini, a map or a few trading cards a box containing some sort of digital information becomes much more appealing to purchase.

3) Back in the bad old days of cassettes I was given a copy of a music tape. It was illegal, no question, but no one was up in arms about the issue back then. It was also the first tape I'd ever owned. I went on to purchase over a hundred dollars of that band's tapes (and later on, CDs) as well as a ticket to a concert when they came into town. This doesn't change the issue of legality, but it does rather toss the question of "who is harmed by the illegal behavior" into the mix.

4) As a big fan of Tim Cain (I have an autographed Arcanum T-Shirt) I followed the Arcanum pre-release information very closely. A late beta version of the game got Torrented three months before the game was released. It was full of bugs and all the positive buzz the game had generated was stone cold dead by the time it actually made it to store shelves. I think it is easy to see that harm was done by the illegal file sharing here. (I will note that there are some real issues with this example, like the publisher refusing the release a finished game because they were trying for a global release).

~Aldin, who thinks creators need remuneration but also thinks that the current distribution model isn't gonna survive long-term

[jsilvrs]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

I wonder how blockbuster fits in there, renting the dvd's and videos. It seems as though they are freely allowed to make money doing something that would be considered illegal by those standards.

I not sure, but I think they have to pay quite a bit extra for the right to rent the dvd. Those fees are not included in retail prices.


What do you guys think about used game sellers like GameStop? Developers see no money off the sell of these used games. A lot of people get to use the game and the developer get one sell while GameStop gets many sells.

[myrealnameisjon]

Legality is not a thing of debate: simply read your EULA, and like it or not, that determines what is legal.

Re: copying cassette tapes from friends, part of what makes that ethically "different" to many people is that they have vested social interest in liking that band/group/etc. As a result, it acts as a sort of "hey buddy, try this. First one's free" distribution model, which has some significant merit and could conceivably work if harnessed properly.

When torrented, that social pressure is not present, and taking from an online community to which one feels no obligation removes any associated benefits of that illegal activity. To whit: you are not going to go to a Stinky Fish concert with BigSFFan2009, some random dude on the internet who gave you one of their albums, but you might go with your friend who hands you the CD and says, "I know you like Loud Minnows, so maybe you'll like Stinky Fish, too!"

[jschild]

But you are splitting hairs. If its wrong, it's wrong.

My intent in this was always to be honest, not to promote it. I know fully well what I do is not the same as what the majority of people who use torrents do. Many think like PGS, most likely.

I know what I did was not legal, but honestly, I don't care because my "intent" if you will, is not theft. That of course would not mean jack in a court of law. PGS's intent is wholly different.

My point now more is, if you give something or let someone borrow it and it actually prevents a sale, would you consider it (not legally, but personally) worse? What do you "feel" is the worse. Downloading a torrent illegally to try out software, and if you like it, buying it legally to support it? Or giving someone a copy (or even the original) and thus preventing a sale?

What about reselling it? Where would you rank those things?