Why are people so against pirating things you already own?

I've been downloading a lot of emulated games lately, all of which I own. I have the copies, but my DS (I still only have the original ones from several years back, they aren't holding up too well) and gameboy advance are dodgy, so I'm getting emulated versions. I told one of my friends and he freaked.

But I'm wondering - What's the damn problem? I only get games I already have bought, and since I'm not removing a copy it's not doing anything negative to the gaming industry.

I totally get being angry at someone for pirating a game they don't have, or stealing another copy of a game you own from a store, but digitally downloading?

Sure it's technically illegal, but so are a lot of things, I'm sure almost all of you have done something technically illegal in the last 2 weeks.

But this does no damage to anything. Why is it a big deal to people?

The response from the industry would be "you're buying the right to access this game using this media on this platform" not "you're buying access to the information".

I'm not sure why that's hard to grasp.

ResonanceSD:
The response from the industry would be "you're buying the right to access this game using this media on this platform" not "you're buying access to the information".

I'm not sure why that's hard to grasp.

But I'm not sure why it's a problem. They're not losing anything at all, I've payed for the game, they don't have a lost sale.

EDIT: And even then, if you pirate a game you own on a pc, you're using it on the original platform.

Well back in the pre-internet days, if you bought a movie (let's go with VHS) and you wore out that tape, or lost it, or broke it somehow, and you wanted to still own it (as in watch completely on your terms) you would either, go buy another copy (the 'right' way) or get a blank tape and tape it though other means (the 'wrong' way).

This is just like that, only the 'wrong' way is now go download another copy.

Please note the single quotes around the words right and wrong to imply that they are not necessarily right or wrong respectively.

burningdragoon:
Well back in the pre-internet days, if you bought a movie (let's go with VHS) and you wore out that tape, or lost it, or broke it somehow, and you wanted to still own it (as in watch completely on your terms) you would either, go buy another copy (the 'right' way) or get a blank tape and tape it though other means (the 'wrong' way).

This is just like that, only the 'wrong' way is now go download another copy.

Please note the single quotes around the words right and wrong to imply that they are not necessarily right or wrong respectively.

ResonanceSD:
The response from the industry would be "you're buying the right to access this game using this media on this platform" not "you're buying access to the information".

I'm not sure why that's hard to grasp.

Lets say I buy a CD, then I rip the music off the CD into MP3 format and listen to the music on my MP3 player instead of the CD player. I'm no longer using the media on the intended platform, but my doing so doesn't seem to bother anyone, so why is it different with games?

Actually, there have been attempts to put copy protection on CDs so that you can't copy the songs off of them, you can only listen to the music on them. The music industry sure would love to restrict CDs but people got used to the format being open so they can't really do anything about people ripping CDs.

There is essentially a difference between doing that and downloading games, too, that when you're downloading something you own, you're not making a copy of what you have, you're getting someone else's. It's virtually the same, but it would be possible to argue the distinction between the two.

In a more practical sense of 'why don't they like it' is because if you've got a pure-data version of the game, you could emulate it, you could play it on an emulator on a newer system, et cetera. They don't have control over where you're playing it, so if you have a copy of Final Fantasy V for the GBA that you can play on your Wii, they'll have a hard time selling you the VC version of Final Fantasy V.

(US-specific)

Theoretically, you're allowed to make copies of any game you own for the purposes of archival or emulation, but only if you dump them yourself. (This is, in fact, explicitly authorized by US copyright law - USC title 17 section 107.)

In practice, it's fairly hard to prove you didn't make the copies yourself unless you actually admit so.

The logical conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

Grygor:
(US-specific)

Theoretically, you're allowed to make copies of any game you own for the purposes of archival or emulation, but only if you dump them yourself. (This is, in fact, explicitly authorized by US copyright law - USC title 17 section 107.)

In practice, it's fairly hard to prove you didn't make the copies yourself unless you actually admit so.

The logical conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

Are you insinuating what I think you are insinuating >:-X

picks up his pitchfork and torch

OT: What does it matter? Do what you want. The FBI is not going to come knocking on your door because you downloaded an emulator for crash bandicoot. Nor should they care O.o

iseko:

Grygor:
(US-specific)

Theoretically, you're allowed to make copies of any game you own for the purposes of archival or emulation, but only if you dump them yourself. (This is, in fact, explicitly authorized by US copyright law - USC title 17 section 107.)

In practice, it's fairly hard to prove you didn't make the copies yourself unless you actually admit so.

The logical conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

Are you insinuating what I think you are insinuating >:-X

picks up his pitchfork and torch

OT: What does it matter? Do what you want. The FBI is not going to come knocking on your door because you downloaded an emulator for crash bandicoot. Nor should they care O.o

Oh, I know I'm not going to get in trouble for that :P

But also just some of my friends are really against piracy, which is good, but they got really pissed off at me, and it doesn't make any sense from my point of view.

It's just silly :/

GeneralTwinkle:

iseko:

Grygor:
snip

snip

Oh, I know I'm not going to get in trouble for that :P

But also just some of my friends are really against piracy, which is good, but they got really pissed off at me, and it doesn't make any sense from my point of view.

It's just silly :/

Morality is subjective. According to the law they are right. You never really BUY the game. If you buy mass effect 3, use the engine to make your own game. I think they will sue your ass pretty fast. If you buy a game you're basically borrowing it on the medium you bought it for. If it breaks or your console breaks (and you can't get your hands on a new one) then you get to eat sh*t. According to the law any ways. To illustrate what I think about this concept I am going to quote many men and women before me:

fuck that shit

Major companies screw over their consumers all the time. If we lived in a hypothetical world where everyone is just. And everyone treats everyone fairly. Then I would buy the game again if I were you. Sadly we do not live in such a world. We live in a world where everyone will screw over everyone else if they can A) get away with it and more importantly B) get richer by doing so. This is not me being cynical this is me being a realist. Now since I do believe that we should all try and be less of the assholes that we are. This is what people should do. Buy the game first. If you then end up in your situation: download it. Seriously, they have your money and if the roles were reversed they would screw you (as illustrated before).

About your friends: they are idiots. They are not being silly. They are idiots.

Well, to be honest, if the games you are trying to play are completely unavailable anywhere else, then the companies have no right to complain.

It's like watching freakazoid on youtube. If they had released a DVD that was readily available, I'd probably buy it, but they haven't so they have no right to get pissy if I watch it on youtube.

Of course, when I say "right" I mean morally. Unfortunately in legal terms, companies have all the right to get uppity about an IP that isn't readily available "legally" and that they are just sitting on. Honestly, I think that should be changed. You either make things readily available legally, or lose the legal right to complain when people find other ways of getting.

ResonanceSD:
The response from the industry would be "you're buying the right to access this game using this media on this platform" not "you're buying access to the information".

I'm not sure why that's hard to grasp.

So if I bought a PC version of X, don't like the DRM on it, and download a cracked version of X for the PC, I'm actually not violating that, as I already bought the right to use this media on this platform, and I'm not overstepping it.

The problem with the industry is that they behave as if software is a product when that suits them, and that it's a license when that suits them.

My solution: EULA should be agreed on and signed before the purchase. If it isn't, the seller has sold a product and has no right to talk about "license". Technically, if I buy a copy of a game, then use a crack to bypass the EULA and DRM, I'm not violating the EULA because I never agreed to it in the first place. That's why the only way I can see this work as a "licensing" business is to have the EULA signed and agreed on before my money goes to the seller.

Vegosiux:

ResonanceSD:
The response from the industry would be "you're buying the right to access this game using this media on this platform" not "you're buying access to the information".

I'm not sure why that's hard to grasp.

So if I bought a PC version of X, don't like the DRM on it, and download a cracked version of X for the PC, I'm actually not violating that, as I already bought the right to use this media on this platform, and I'm not overstepping it.

The problem with the industry is that they behave as if software is a product when that suits them, and that it's a license when that suits them.

My solution: EULA should be agreed on and signed before the purchase. If it isn't, the seller has sold a product and has no right to talk about "license". Technically, if I buy a copy of a game, then use a crack to bypass the EULA and DRM, I'm not violating the EULA because I never agreed to it in the first place. That's why the only way I can see this work as a "licensing" business is to have the EULA signed and agreed on before my money goes to the seller.

Trust me.... You do not want to do that...

You do not know the lvl of bullshit I had to read through at work, just to do my job. We are talking single licence program on a dongle that moves from machine to machine when used. 60 pages of paperwork when we had deal with when Oracle came into the picture. The reason we dont do it is because it is such a hassle it would make purchases almost impossible.

The best solution would be to standardise distribution method and let the customer understand 1 set of rules that applies evenly for every product distributed this way.
Ofc that bites the publishers in the ass when they want to make their own stuff, but hey the customer should just be aware that a separate set of rules would a apply for software outside the standard.

Dirty Hipsters:

Lets say I buy a CD, then I rip the music off the CD into MP3 format and listen to the music on my MP3 player instead of the CD player. I'm no longer using the media on the intended platform, but my doing so doesn't seem to bother anyone, so why is it different with games?

Because all the filthy pirates and used game sales have effectively murdered the industry. That's why they're reporting record numbers (unless they happen to be THQ).

Draech:

The best solution would be to standardise distribution method and let the customer understand 1 set of rules that applies evenly for every product distributed this way.
Ofc that bites the publishers in the ass when they want to make their own stuff, but hey the customer should just be aware that a separate set of rules would a apply for software outside the standard.

Actually, thinking about it, that does sounds like an even better solution, yes. Evening the grounds for everyone is always a good idea.

OP, as far as I know most people aren't against it. Companies are against it because it means they can only sell you the same product once, instead of hundreds of times. Everyone's end game seems to be setting up a system where they do nothing and people just give them money.

Vegosiux:

The problem with the industry is that they behave as if software is a product when that suits them, and that it's a license when that suits them.

They also love capitalism and regulation when it gets them money, and hate capitalism and regulation when it gives consumers rights... I'm sensing a pattern

Because companies want money and people follow authority.

I both rip my own games (if they're on a disc) and 'download' my own games (if they are older than PS1), I see no harm in it since you cannot really buy GBA games or the like where I live anyway, so if companies complain screw them.

I've told this story a few times, and I'm going to tell it again:
A few years back I bought a new copy of ME1 for PC, it was already a few years after launch, but I thought it looked nice.
Long story short, my access key didn't work, customer support was bad, and after a week of fiddling, I downloaded a crack.
Illegal? I don't know.
Annoying? Definitely.

If we're talking AAA titles. Who's stealing from who?

Who are the copyrights protecting?
It's not developers, artists, musicians or actors. It's big business. Big business who purchase the rights to titles and media left right and center then archive them away for milking.

The only time Piracy actually hurts anything is when its committed against Indie developers or the likes. Quite frankly, Indie developers seem substantially less concerned about it then the multi billion dollar corporations are.

Vegosiux:
So if I bought a PC version of X, don't like the DRM on it, and download a cracked version of X for the PC, I'm actually not violating that, as I already bought the right to use this media on this platform, and I'm not overstepping it.

Except in that case you aren't downloading the same game you payed for. You payed for a copy with the DRM, and are downloading a modified version. Yes its a small difference, but small differences are what this is all about.

GeneralTwinkle:
They're not losing anything at all, I've payed for the game, they don't have a lost sale.

Just going to put it out there, I hate that quote :P Its an argument pirates use to justify pirating things and its a flawed argument. One of these days ill make a thread about all the piracy and anti-piracy arguments and clear up why they are all mostly wrong.

Because they were carefully molded and groomed by companies teaching them the good and bad of this industry, yay blind consumerism.

You're not buying a game man, just a temporary permission to use it, if thou corporate lord willeth so!

I think the biggest problem with that being acceptable is that eventually everyone who downloaded it is going to be saying "Yeah I own it, I just don't know where my legit-copy is right now" or "The original copy I had was destroyed in a fire but I really had it when I downloaded this copy!"

GeneralTwinkle:
I've been downloading a lot of emulated games lately, all of which I own. I have the copies, but my DS (I still only have the original ones from several years back, they aren't holding up too well) and gameboy advance are dodgy, so I'm getting emulated versions. I told one of my friends and he freaked.

But I'm wondering - What's the damn problem? I only get games I already have bought, and since I'm not removing a copy it's not doing anything negative to the gaming industry.

I totally get being angry at someone for pirating a game they don't have, or stealing another copy of a game you own from a store, but digitally downloading?

Sure it's technically illegal, but so are a lot of things, I'm sure almost all of you have done something technically illegal in the last 2 weeks.

But this does no damage to anything. Why is it a big deal to people?

If the reason you're downloadin emulated versions of games is that your DS is dodgey then the reason it'd be "wrong" is that you're basically downloadin somethin for a system you don't necessarily have. You have the physical thing, sure, but if it doesn't work you can't really count it.

shintakie10:
If the reason you're downloadin emulated versions of games is that your DS is dodgey then the reason it'd be "wrong" is that you're basically downloadin somethin for a system you don't necessarily have. You have the physical thing, sure, but if it doesn't work you can't really count it.

While I dislike GenerlTwinkies reasoning, they are downloading the games for PC(if Im reading it right) because their DS and GB copies are a bit knocked up.

Personally Im totally fine with that...ONLY if the copies of the game dont exist on PC for sale(which they probably dont) The key difference between what he is doing and downloading a game you already own, is he is downloading it for a platform, in which there is actually no copy available for sale. So in that case there is literally no way the publisher can gain money..EVEN IF he wanted to do it legitimately. If there is absolutely no opportunity to get a game legitimately(ie pay for it) then I'm okay with it.

OP, I'm guessing that if your friends genuinely care that you're doing this, then you guys are still in school. Quite frankly, it's none of their business, do what you want, it's on your conscience whether you think it's right or wrong (although I think you are in the right).

Doom-Slayer:

GeneralTwinkle:
They're not losing anything at all, I've payed for the game, they don't have a lost sale.

Just going to put it out there, I hate that quote :P Its an argument pirates use to justify pirating things and its a flawed argument. One of these days ill make a thread about all the piracy and anti-piracy arguments and clear up why they are all mostly wrong.

I can understand how you would hate this quote when used by pirates as an excuse along the lines of "if I hadn't pirated it, then I wouldn't have bought it anyway", but this guy has already paid for the game. In this case, they really haven't lost the sale, because they have already had the sale. Saying otherwise is really just silly.

Doom-Slayer:

shintakie10:
If the reason you're downloadin emulated versions of games is that your DS is dodgey then the reason it'd be "wrong" is that you're basically downloadin somethin for a system you don't necessarily have. You have the physical thing, sure, but if it doesn't work you can't really count it.

While I dislike GenerlTwinkies reasoning, they are downloading the games for PC(if Im reading it right) because their DS and GB copies are a bit knocked up.

Personally Im totally fine with that...ONLY if the copies of the game dont exist on PC for sale(which they probably dont) The key difference between what he is doing and downloading a game you already own, is he is downloading it for a platform, in which there is actually no copy available for sale. So in that case there is literally no way the publisher can gain money..EVEN IF he wanted to do it legitimately. If there is absolutely no opportunity to get a game legitimately(ie pay for it) then I'm okay with it.

See, it is a weird issue because on the one hand, you've already given the money to the publisher of the game. On the other hand, you would be playin a game that you otherwise would not be able to play. A gray area perhaps, but legally it'd firmly be on the level of illegal.

Dirty Hipsters:

Lets say I buy a CD, then I rip the music off the CD into MP3 format and listen to the music on my MP3 player instead of the CD player. I'm no longer using the media on the intended platform, but my doing so doesn't seem to bother anyone, so why is it different with games?

Making a copy for that purpose still constitutes Fair Use, while downloading something online does not.

GeneralTwinkle:

iseko:

Grygor:
(US-specific)

Theoretically, you're allowed to make copies of any game you own for the purposes of archival or emulation, but only if you dump them yourself. (This is, in fact, explicitly authorized by US copyright law - USC title 17 section 107.)

In practice, it's fairly hard to prove you didn't make the copies yourself unless you actually admit so.

The logical conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

Are you insinuating what I think you are insinuating >:-X

picks up his pitchfork and torch

OT: What does it matter? Do what you want. The FBI is not going to come knocking on your door because you downloaded an emulator for crash bandicoot. Nor should they care O.o

Oh, I know I'm not going to get in trouble for that :P

But also just some of my friends are really against piracy, which is good, but they got really pissed off at me, and it doesn't make any sense from my point of view.

It's just silly :/

Sometimes when people have been taught to condemn a certain act and feel strongly about it, their emotions throw up walls that obscure their insight and reasoning by the emotional response from merely mentioning said act. This makes reasoning with someone quite difficult.

Basically, your friends are letting their emotions against piracy cloud their better judgement. They stopped using their heads the minute you said that you emulated some games and then they spew out whatever their feelings were telling them. If I were you I would point this out to them, if they actually listen to you they might become more open and think about the justification you have for emulating games you already purchased and realize that you actually helped support the game companies that made them.

If they don't listen then I am sorry but you have made terrible friends.

Dirty Hipsters:

burningdragoon:
Well back in the pre-internet days, if you bought a movie (let's go with VHS) and you wore out that tape, or lost it, or broke it somehow, and you wanted to still own it (as in watch completely on your terms) you would either, go buy another copy (the 'right' way) or get a blank tape and tape it though other means (the 'wrong' way).

This is just like that, only the 'wrong' way is now go download another copy.

Please note the single quotes around the words right and wrong to imply that they are not necessarily right or wrong respectively.

ResonanceSD:
The response from the industry would be "you're buying the right to access this game using this media on this platform" not "you're buying access to the information".

I'm not sure why that's hard to grasp.

Lets say I buy a CD, then I rip the music off the CD into MP3 format and listen to the music on my MP3 player instead of the CD player. I'm no longer using the media on the intended platform, but my doing so doesn't seem to bother anyone, so why is it different with games?

And if you're computer exploded (just pretend, okay), your accidentally smashed your MP3 to bits, and the CD disintegrated, then downloading those songs from elsewhere would once again fall under the 'wrong' way to restore your ownage state with those songs.

It's a pretty clear distinction, even if you don't think it's a big enough one to change the okayness of it.

Its still pirating no matter how you put it.

shintakie10:
See, it is a weird issue because on the one hand, you've already given the money to the publisher of the game. On the other hand, you would be playin a game that you otherwise would not be able to play. A gray area perhaps, but legally it'd firmly be on the level of illegal.

Its definalty illegal, but Id say its okay to do. For example Nintendo says this.

Isn't it Okay to Download Nintendo ROMs for Games that are No Longer Distributed in the Stores or Commercially Exploited? Aren't They Considered "Public Domain"?

No, the current availability of a game in stores is irrelevant as to its copyright status. Copyrights do not enter the public domain just because they are no longer commercially exploited or widely available. Therefore, the copyrights of games are valid even if the games are not found on store shelves, and using, copying and/or distributing those games is a copyright infringement.

Which I think, is total nonsense. There is not a chance in hell that any developer would take that seriously. Why? Because the maximum they could be granted for it would be the value of whatever you pirated so long as you didn't share it, and the court fees would be worth 1000 times that.

The way I see piracy, if there is any possibility at all that you can get a product legitimately(within reason), you are required to do that. In the case of OP, they already own the games on the platform they were released on, and hey arent available on PC, so by downloading them on PC I see no problem. If the devs went ahead and started selling their own ROM for PC, then I would say youd have to buy it instead of pirating it, despite already owning a copy.

In Canada I don't think that would be illegal. Basically for personal use, we can download anything we want without paying. It is only illegal to circumvent DRM, such as applying a crack to a game. So for example I could download the DRM free version of The Witcher 2 and legally play it, without paying (note: I bought it). I don't know exactly how that would apply to playing ROMs on an emulator, but I don't think you are technically circumventing DRM.

Basically I'm legally allowed to download all the movies, music, and TV shows I want.

From a government website about Bill C-11 (the latest copyright amendment)
http://www.balancedcopyright.gc.ca/eic/site/crp-prda.nsf/eng/h_rp01153.html#stop

Piracy

What does this Bill do to stop Internet piracy?

This Bill contains provisions that will improve the ability of copyright owners to control the uses of their works online.

For example, this Bill contains legal protection for digital locks, and also introduces new provisions to allow copyright owners to pursue those who enable copyright infringement, such as illegal peer-to-peer file sharing sites.

So basically it's illegal to share, but not to download.

EDIT: Actually as I read more, it seems more like it's just a loophole. It's perfectly legal for us to copy our own copyrighted material, but it does say for example:

29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if

(a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;

Which obviously implies downloading an illegal copy is illegal.

I had to do something similar. I had to crack my copy of Medieval 2 Total War, because the Steam version was broken. The launcher didn't work, but after cracking, the game worked perfectly. I'm not sure if that counts.

Now, hypothetical question. What if you pirate, say, Red Alert 2, and use a CD key you have because you bought the game before? This is what I had to do, because I had a bad habit of getting my discs scratched. I managed to stop breaking my games.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked