Ragdrazi:

L.B. Jeffries:

I never said I thought there was anything fine with it. I would defend it except that isn't how a copyright works. A basic wiki would've explained it to you. You're mixing it up with a patent. A copyright gives you sole ownership of the expression of an idea for a finite period of time. So if two people made a movie based on Romeo & Juliet, they aren't infringing on one another because they are separate expressions of an idea. The play itself is now too old to be protected by a copyright.

Ok, so you're telling me I don't know how copyright works, and then offering an example completely inapplicable to the situation? You know, I've been following copyright for a really long time, and I'm really wondering if you just checked the wiki for yourself here. A play like Romeo and Juliet cannot be owned because it's so old it's in the "public domain." It cannot be trespassed upon, and those two separate plays cannot be considered as trespassing upon each other. Why bring the public domain into this conversation? It's a pointless example.

Now, you seem to have really stupidly gotten hung up on the use of the word idea. I was not talking about the idea of a first person shooter. I was talking about the ideas, experiences, and expressions contained within works of art. Those can and are copyrighted. Now, I made all this clear. To assume I was talking about things covered by patent is to almost willfully misinterpret me. And if we want to sit here playing ridiculous semantic games on the difference between the words "idea" and "expression" tell me so I can get out now.

HEY! You quoted me. All I did in this thread was cite the Federal Law that a person is violating when they download a video game. I'm not waltzing around telling pirates they're wrong and I'm not yammering about hurting the publishers. I just wanted people to be better informed about the technical details.

If you don't like it when I tell you that your bizarro world "thinking other people's thoughts" idea is not actually what's going on legally, then don't drag me into the argument. You can cry foul all you want, you can yammer about how the public domain and patents weren't what you were talking about, it doesn't matter. That is the fundamental error you make when you say that violating a copyright is thinking other people's thoughts and those are the principles that explain why your entire idea doesn't work.

The fact is you quoted me and expected me to agree with your completely fictional idea about how copyright works and no, I'm not going to. If you don't like the fact that I'm telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, then stop talking to me about it.

BurnoutPriest:
...please provide your definition of stealing. This seems to be where most of the conflict is originating from and perhaps we can iron out a definition that stands up in all scenarios we perceive as "theft."

How about... taking something that is not yours without giving compensation?

Ragdrazi:
Explain to me how the library system differs substantively to torrents.

Now, I can think of one instance, and one instance only in which a game was leaked to torrent before it was released. But, outside of that one instance, pirates buy the game, set copies out on the shelves--er torrents, and start the "book sharing." So how has that differed from the library?

Oh, wow. You really don't understand the difference?

Read this carefully: AT THE LIBRARY, YOU DON'T COPY THE WHOLE DAMNED BOOK WHEN YOU BRING IT HOME. Nor do libraries DISTRIBUTE the book illegally. If you can't understand that, I'm not going to explain it any further.

So, you bring it home and use it as reference. Well, that's exactly what libraries are FOR. REFERENCE.

Oh, and your insistence that there have been no torrents of games before their release is bullshit. It's happened with TWO of my games. Let me explain how it happens: At the factories where the press the discs, some employee swipes a copy, rips it and gets it out there. Then, some hacker patches it. Voila.

Ok, you're mind is completely closed down to this example. Work with me here.

Why shouldn't it be? Your example isn't relevant.

L.B. Jeffries:
The fact is you quoted me and expected me to agree with your completely fictional idea about how copyright works and no, I'm not going to. If you don't like the fact that I'm telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, then stop talking to me about it.

Pay no attention to Ragdrazi. He thinks software piracy is comparable to borrowing a book from the library.

It's still theft. And no, I havn't been reading your replies or thinking about my arguments at all.

Because it's theft. You are taking something. Something you usually would pay for. Except your not paying for it, your just taking it. Copywrite infringement is a form of theft. Wether or not you have deprieved them of ownership you have deprived them of the money they would aquire from selling it to you.

It's theft.

perfectimo:
Look at it this way then had you not acquired the game through "piracy" you would have had tto of bought it from a store. That is why this is theft. There is no way around it.

Or, more likely, not bought it at all. In that case, the only thing they gain or loose is word of mouth and wether that's good or bad is up to the developers.

Tell me, how is downloading World of Goo in europe or asia detracting anything from the developers directly?

SirSchmoopy:
I don't get it, whats the difference from downloading a game and stealing a copy from Gamestop? Isn't it the same thing?

The difference is that in X years, a piece of "intellectual property" protected by copyright or patent law will be considered part of the public domain, meaning that it can be freely copied, modified, or redistributed by any and all.

(Unfortunately, for copyrighted works, "X" is an ever-increasing number because Disney is sabotaging the whole system to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain.)

-- Alex

Jimmyjames:
Pay no attention to Ragdrazi. He thinks software piracy is comparable to borrowing a book from the library.

Charles Stross, from "Why the Commercial Ebook Market is Broken":

In the pre-internet dark age, there was a subculture of folks who would get their hands on books and pass them around and encourage people to read them for free, rather than buying their own copies. Much like today's ebook pirates, in terms of the what they did (with one or two minor differences). There was a closely-related subculture who would actually sell copies of books without paying the authors a penny in royalties, too.

We have a technical term for such people: we call them "librarians" and "second-hand bookstore owners".

The problem, as he goes on to point out, is that there's no one who can legally fill that niche now.

-- Alex

You bring up a couple good points (and yes, I'm angry- because I'm sick of defending this position to people that all basically say the same thing). But, I still think you're wrong. Add to that the fact that you are asking me to make an exception to my values, while you are not willing to make an exception to yours.

Ragdrazi:
You know Jimmy, I'm catching a lot of anger from you. I know you're invested in this, but you got to understand. In addition to liking games, I want to be a writer. The concept of what libraries mean to that is something I've thought about.

Well, then it should bug the crap out of you that people distribute things (like books) over the internet. How can you defend one and not the other?

You take the copy home, it's yours for free, provided you renew. You say libraries do not distribute illegally? That's true. But I'm asking what makes the a library exempt from that law? I don't have to buy the writing of some brilliant young author such as myself, because I can read the book when ever I want it without buying it.

What about the fact that the library only has a certain amount of any one book- as opposed to digital distribution, of which can plant literally millions of illicit copies onto machines across the globe? Even digital library resources must be "checked out", and you only have access for a certain amount of time.

Ragdrazi:

Jimmyjames:
At the factories where the press the discs, some employee swipes a copy, rips it and gets it out there. Then, some hacker patches it. Voila.

And I'm not going to defend that. Clearly that is theft.[\quote]

So how is it any different if someone buys the game, copies it, and puts it up on the internet? Only thing different is the fact that they got the original copy legally. Distributing is (very clearly in US law) illegal.

[quote]This generation was the generation of our founding fathers. [SORRY- LIBRARIES GO BACK A LOT FURTHER THAN THAT] The only thing that's changed now is the attitudes we have on art and information. Before, we believed it should be available to all. Now we believe it's a commodity.

I don't write commodities. I write art.

So, you are basically contradicting what you just said. You're saying that writing has a value beyond the material it's printed on, right? So... can't the same be said of games? On one hand you have "Orange Box", and on the other "Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing", so how do you explain defending piracy and comparing it to libraries? By comparing it to a commodity, you're saying that quality has something to do with it's value.

Ragdrazi:

Ok, if you're not interested in conversation, you shouldn't have come to a public forum.

Indeed, one may have to encounter obnoxious things like facts that don't agree with their world view. For example, the copyright remains viable after you die, it continues on for a set period of years depending on the country it was filed in.

As a slight note on the library argument, one artistic medium is thousands of years old, the other is about thirty years old. Once there are enough video games that are no longer protected by copyright, then a fully functioning library system will be perfectly legit under the current law.

I don't really expect this to come true though, given the speed at which the internet is enabling streaming technology. At this point I think companies will just host libraries of games that are no longer economically viable and just let people use it for free or as a fee. There are already several projects under way with Origin and a few other company's old files as they are stored and published.

Ragdrazi:
What I am saying is that these things have a value beyond the material they are printed on, and that value cannot be judged monetarily.

When it comes down to it, I think we mostly agree (except for the idea that the library is similar in any way to piracy). So I guess the question is:

WHAT IS YOUR POINT? You keep contradicting yourself- step away and formulate your idea. I can't tell anymore if you agree with libraries, or you think they are the same as software piracy, or you don't put monetary value on artistic merit, or you consider creative output to be something more than a public resource.

FYI: You know the definition of a commodity, right? Because the more I read back, the more I think you don't really know. It's essentially goods of which the value is dependent of the market price, not quality. Example: Steel, wheat, rice, corn, etc, are commodities. Cars, TVs, bicycles are not.

I support the idea that downloading isn't exactly stealing. For example, a friend of yours buys a game, and then gives you a copy of it because he thinks you are an awesome pal. Has the the company the right to say to this guy: "Hey what are you doing? You are stealing money from us!"? File-sharing is basically this, only like someone with a 10 million awesome friends.

The companies wrongly assume that all these people who played a pirated copy of their game will pay the price of it if they don't have the option of free downloading. It's not going to happen.

It is estimated that for every legal copy there is between 15 or 20 illegal copies. This is probably for USA, because I'm sure that in poorer countries this ratio is like 1:1000.
It's obvious that someone who gets 150$ dollars a month salary, will never pay £37.99 for a legal copy of "Fallout 3". Lets leave these guys aside and concentrate on those who can pay but don't do it.

Lets do some math. Lets say that Fallout 3 sells 1 million legal copies at the current price of £37.99. This makes £37 990 000 for the company. Now at this price I wil not buy this game, despite being a big fan. And I can afford to buy it but it still seems ridiculously high.

Lets see what happens if the price drops a little. What if it was £20? Well, this is much better, but still too high for me. What if it was £10? Now this is a very good price for me, and I'd probably purchase the game immediately. What if it was £7 - I'd aready have it.
Now 1 million copies at the price of £7 isn't a big profit for the company. But you forget that the number of people like me who would now buy the game will rise dramatically. Let's say that 5 more million people like me decide that the price of £7 is super awesome and buy the game. 6 million copies time 7 equals £ 42 million - this is £4 million more than the £38 million that the game will make with 1 million copies at £37.99 price. And what if all these 15 illegal downloaders per one legal decide that they can afford the price of £7 - the company will make £112 000 000. Pretty good, eh?

Someone must make a simple research about what price the people are ready to pay for their games and make the according ajustments.

Of course, the reality is that the companies thinks that they could sell 16 million copies of a game at the price of £37.99 if only it wasn't for the damn pirates. Ha ha ha. Greed is funny thing.

Get over yourself. It's stealing. It's not new. As an activity, downloading is over 25 years old. It's probably older than you, and I don't think that qualifies as "something new".

You are stealing. Every ounce of breath you waste on justifying your actions is just that: wasted breath. You are in receipt of someone else's effort without duly compensating them in any way. That is the definition of stealing.

You are doing nothing new, in either the digital sense or the non-digital sense. The moment someone decided they wanted to be compensated for their code, illegal copying became a possibility. I'm pretty sure this occurred early in the 20th century, roughly around World War Two. That's older than both of us. It's not something new.

It's stealing. If you've downloaded something without paying for it, you have stolen. Now, we can discuss what a reasonable punishment should be. I agree that the RIAA and MPAA and to a certain extent the ESA are a little draconian and should tone their whole operation down a notch or two, but their point is valid and you cannot change that with a simple forum post. It's codified in international law that the activity you are talking about is indeed a crime. Change that fact, and you may begin to have a leg to stand on in a debate like this.

Symantics,you deny profit to a game developer, retailer, and publisher whenever you download a game. You are stealing and don't try to sugar coat it any other way.

No it is not stealing. Every ounce of breath you waste on defining it as a crime is just that: wasted breath.

It was already explained to you, that the company doesn't lose any real assets. Just an opportunity to sell the game. But an opportunity is not a material thing.

In a way its thought theft. Taking someone hard work and concepts without without their permission.

Lets use a theoretical communist society. Lets say that everyone is evenly split up all of the goods and services. Now in the theoretical society one person decides not to contribute to the work in progress but still receives the full goods and services he in fact is stealing.

Now in downloading illegal 'good x' isn't stealing per-say as mugging a guy or taking an item from store, but instead its a stealing on intellectual level. You are destroying the value of their work and progress by downloading item x and using it without contributing to their work and progress. By law it's copyright infringement but on a deeper level. You are in fact stealing. You are (very small only) stealing not from the people who make the, but you stealing from each and every person who legally bought the game.

Now if you feel that they made a game that isn't worth you money it obviously isn't worth you time, and you shouldn't buy it or play it. Instead try doing something more productive like study another language or spend more time with friends and family.

Asehujiko:

perfectimo:
Look at it this way then had you not acquired the game through "piracy" you would have had tto of bought it from a store. That is why this is theft. There is no way around it.

Or, more likely, not bought it at all. In that case, the only thing they gain or loose is word of mouth and wether that's good or bad is up to the developers.

Tell me, how is downloading World of Goo in europe or asia detracting anything from the developers directly?

I don't know exactly what that has to do with location but it will take from the developer as a direct after affect because if you and whoever else out there is torrenting his products then the company will look at his sale and realise he didn't make as much as usual. In fact he had made about 20% less in sales and so the next project he wants to work on the company gives him less money and then you and your friends torrent and you think the game is worse than his last outing but you still plan on stealing his next game. This goes on and well his pay starts to decrease and the game are just crap and then you all go out and bitch and moan about the how crap his games are now but in the end it was you lot that caused it.

Thank you for reading this if you did and I hope you see the error in your ways.

Ragdrazi:
Torrents are demonstratively similar to libraries. I have demonstrated this to you. If you choose to reject that demonstration, that's your right.

OK. Well, you went off on at least four tangents, one of which sounded like you were trying to discern "what is art". But you've clarified your point.

And I disagree.

What it comes down to:

Libraries are places that you borrow material LEGALLY. BORROW. Get it? BORROW.

Do you UNDERSTAND this? Are you capable of ADMITTING that BORROWING is the POINT of LIBRARIES? That is why there are fines if you don't bring stuff back. You are not meant to keep things forever. Sure, you CAN. But you're NOT SUPPOSED TO.

Now, when you download from a TORRENT, HOWEVER SIMILAR THE CONCEPT IS, YOU ARE DOWNLOADING SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED ILLEGALLY.

Can we at LEAST agree in this? THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO THIS. IT IS FACT. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE.

That's it, I'm done. Reply if you want, I don't care.

TsunamiWombat:
It's still theft. And no, I havn't been reading your replies or thinking about my arguments at all.

Because it's theft. You are taking something. Something you usually would pay for. Except your not paying for it, your just taking it. Copywrite infringement is a form of theft. Wether or not you have deprieved them of ownership you have deprived them of the money they would aquire from selling it to you.

It's theft.

What if I live in a country where it is not available ?
It will never be sold to me,
so I get a COPY of it.

Did the publisher actually lost money?
Am I depriving anyone of anything ?

In a lot of case it is indeed theft ; but what's your opinion about this particular case ?

(why are posts at the end of the last page ignored :'( )

A game is the product of the effort of others, which is sold- value for value- and not given away for free.

By illegally downloading the product you violate the property rights and intellectual property rights of those who made the game, who made it *for sale* and not for free, you are stealing. You still have a product that you SHOULD not have because you have not paid for it- it is irrelevant whether it is digital or physical. There are no new terms needed.

What if I live in a country where it is not available ?
It will never be sold to me,

You're using the Internet.
Find someone from a country that has it, usually you can find them in forums related to the product, and see if anyone is interested in something from YOUR country. Then organize a mail trade.
I've done this with CDs of Rumanian singer Ruslana, French singesr Julien Clerc and Juliette, and many others. I have traded with people in Rumania and France for things they want that they can't easily get there. You'd be amazed.

If you try hard enough, you can find a way. Unless you live in abject poverty in a third world country (and if you do, then why do you have a computer that can PLAY these games anyways, instead of using the money to invest in a better life?), you really do have opportunities at your fingertips to help you find what you want.

Sounds to me like you're just making excuses.

Radgrazi uttered::
I'm really tired of this. I really don't want to see anyone on this thread attack torrents, until they can explain to me how their ideas could not be used to attack libraries. Period.

You asked for it.

Products for sale are put on sale voluntarily by the team/company that created the product. They want to make an earning off it, so the only condition by which you may have it is a value-for-value exchange, with the product being one value and your currency being another. To take it without paying the value- be it physically or electronically- is theft, as you are breaking their property rights (the rights by which they determine what becomes of their property and how it is disposed). You take their property (digital or physical) without their WILLING CONSENT, therefore it is not only theft but also a method of moral violence.

Libraries are recipients of donated goods (books, tapes, CDs), whose donors have WILLINGLY donated these items to the Library, which WILLINGLY makes these items available to you (for the small fee of library membership) under their terms (return by a certain date, no damage of the property without fines, etc). The donors are aware that these materials will be available for public consumption, and give WILLING CONSENT to this.

Libraries loan out physical objects, when you get a book from one library it doesn't mean that every library in the country has that book, nor does it mean that one thousand opeople can check the same book at the same time from the same library without one thousand books- and without having to pay the library membership.

A torrent site allows you to do exactly that: take one copy and make it into thousands or tens of thousands with no compensation, no attribution and no license. Not only is that illegal, as defined by the law, but it is also completely incomparable to a library. Not only that, but libraries' new purchases of newly-released books are at higher rates than what you -the individual- pay to get off the store shelves, precisely because of the libraries' distribution model. This is not true for every title on the shelf. I believe a rational person can see now the differences between the two.

On top of that Librarians and Libraries take painstaking measures to uphold copyright laws, lest they be shut down- something a torrent site does not.

chronobreak:

bkd69:

TsunamiWombat:
It's still theft. Sorry.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Nah man, it's deff so. It's theft. It's stealing. After reading through 3 pages of arguments, I still don't get what's wrong with a lot of you people. You're splitting hairs. Call a spade a spade.

Okay, it's a spade:
http://images.google.com/images?as_q=spade&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&imgtype=&imgsz=&as_filetype=&imgc=&as_sitesearch=&safe=images&as_st=y

incal11:

Because it is another issue with 2 sides who won't change their opinions I don't think it'll go anywhere , but I'll at least try to sum it up.

we have:
-the ones who think there are gradations in "theft"
and that "piracy" is the least harmful form of theft, so much that theft is maybe too big of a word for it.

-the ones who think theft is theft is theft , and seems to think "piracy" is just as bad as killing someone for his shoes.
If you can't see what is wrong with that , you are probably among the ones with selective vision that ignore posts like these:

Eggo:

Sorry babe, but it's copyright infringement.

For it to be theft, it has to deprive the original owner of the rightful possession of that property or its use.

It's just as bad as theft, but saying it's theft is a frankly dishonest simplification of such a complex issue.

I've made two posts requesting some feedback on the relative criminality/transgressiveness of various illicit downloads:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.77748?page=2#952930

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.77513?page=4#945560

Have you seen any replies to them?

Saying that all thefts are morally equivalent is as much a negative value contribution to the discussion as saying if it's on the internet then it's free.

I'm sure this has been asked, but...

Does it really matter whether it's theft or not if it's illegal?

Ragdrazi:
Stuff the guy said that makes no ration sense

Just read Merryjest's post... he took the time to explain it a lot more clearly than I did.
There's nothing I can say that will change your mind if you really think keeping library materials past any reasonable due-date is the same as distributing materials illegally over the internet. Seriously.

I just can't even make you see reason, apparently.

Hey, wait... are you a chick?