Gaming piracy

[CHR15T05]

The principle that piracy of any type violates is



It does not matter if it's easy, difficult, for testing purposes, digital, analog, not for profit, and etc. If you obtain something without permission then it is stealing.

I use to debate in my head about ROM's. I thought well this isn't going to hurt anyone, or they don't sale these games anymore. The bottom line is you have to pay to play, and trying to run around their policies is crooked.

I'm not trying to be preachy, but I see a lot of opinions, but the bottom line is what does the Word of God say about the matter.

If you are talking or asking a question about then it must be on your conscious that it is wrong, and the Word of God says,

Amen.

For me, all I have seen in the counter arguments is personal "justification" for something that is legally and morraly wrong. That's the problem with Christianity these days, too many sit and explain away scripture until they can justify whatever life style they want to.

It would seem there is no right or wrong anymore and everything comes down to personal conviction.

I find no scriptual backup for taking "personal conviction" as a replacement for Gods word.... then again I find now scriptual backup for democracy, which in theory, is Man saying "we cant trust God to pick our leaders so we will do it".... not to say God cant work through the modern system but do you see my point?

What I personally think is right or wrong is irrelevent when debating moral issues from a "kingdom of God" perspective.

If we take the rule of the "pirates" above... then we create the following "Chaos law":

If you CAN afford something.... buy it.

For those that CANT afford the SAME THING.... take it anyway.....

and this makes it fair?

 

[Dracil]

*sigh*

It seems like people still do not get the difference between stealing and copyright infringement. If you don't wanna listen, that's fine. I have the *law* on my side though, regarding the definitions.

BTW, there *is* some scriptural backup for some personal convictions having a say. Romans 14.

Also BTW, in terms of Economics. If you aren't going to buy the product anyway, you were never a part of their market. So by this technicality, since you would never have generated a sale for the company, they never suffered any revenue loss by your getting a copy of the CD. Thus, you cannot even argue that we are "stealing" any income from them. They still own their CD, and we have a digital copy of the CD. Copyrights create temporary monopolies (except, these companies you're fighting so strongly for, want to make it permanent), and you should all know that monopolies are bad for us, the consumers.

Seems like no one wants to address the protests and civil disobedience stuff.

And I still don't understand why people are so happy to have their rights "stolen" by these companies.

 

[KenobiKid]

Yeah you know I guess you're right. It doesn't matter that someone works for months to create something with the hopes the sales are high. Because if the sales are high it warrants a sequel or follow up album. It's not stealing to at all to copy or download something that everyone else has to pay for. Why should it matter that, if you're too cheap or can't afford something might as well just take it. Is that about right?

 

[Dracil]

Yep, it's not stealing at all to copy or download something that everyone else has to pay for. It's copyright infringement. When we have the definitions settled, *then* we can start talking about the impact. Remember, I'm not saying it's not illegal, but I want people to be correct about the definitions.

BTW, piracy increases sales. People may download first, but they also often buy later. You're making the logical fallacy that downloads always = no sales.

That's the other thing. The RIAA fudges their books to make it look like their sales have gone down when it's actually gone up (unlike most other companies who do the exact opposite), so that they can brainwash people into thinking that piracy is really that bad.

If you want to stand up for these people who lie to you in order to screw you over. Go for it. It's your free will.

 

[KenobiKid]

Yep, it's not stealing at all to copy or download something that everyone else has to pay for. It's copyright infringement. When we have the definitions settled, *then* we can start talking about the impact. Remember, I'm not saying it's not illegal, but I want people to be correct about the definitions.

BTW, piracy increases sales. People may download first, but they also often buy later. You're making the logical fallacy that downloads always = no sales.

That's the other thing. The RIAA fudges their books to make it look like their sales have gone down when it's actually gone up (unlike most other companies who do the exact opposite), so that they can brainwash people into thinking that piracy is really that bad.

So you agree that is illegal? You admit that it is piracy, you adimt that it is copyright infringement. So what exactly is you're point? It's ok to do illegal things because you don't want to pay for it? You know since this is a Christian website lets look at piracy and what it means.

Piracy:

1. Robbery

2. A similar act of robbery

1. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

Robbery:
The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another

I'm sure you're familiar with the 10 Commandments
Ex: Thou Shall Not Steal.

Maybe I'm just brainwashed but I just don't see the validity of you're replies. So now you're saying it's alright to steal?

 

[Dracil]

Don't pick and choose the definitions you like which are irrelevant to the topic. Each definition is different, and it's obvious that the definition we are talking about is " 1. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy. "

Seriously, at 22 years old I would expect you to know how to properly use a dictionary. You *do* understand the concept that a single word can have several definitions, yes?

Here, I'll use the definition from Merriam-Webster to illustrate my point, in the rare event you really do not know the difference.

1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

Do you seriously think definition 1, 2, and 3 are exactly the same thing? So by your conflation of definitions, when those sea pirates boarded the merchant vessels to plunder and kill, they were making copies of all those gold pieces and then taking it back on their ship? And when people download MP3s on their computers, they must be doing it on the high seas. Sheesh.

I'm quite familiar with the 10 commandments, and this is not "stealing" no matter how much you try to put a spin it.

The point? Answer my question on what you think of protests and civil disobedience.

 

[KenobiKid]

No at 22 I'm brainwashed because I pay for things instead of stealing them. And yes I aware of how to use a dictionary. So you tell me since you're so smart what exactly does illegal mean? At 21 I would expect you to know the difference between what is stealing and what isn't. And what about the moral issue? Is it ok to sidestep the rules laid down by GOD because you want to save a few bucks?

 

[KenobiKid]

You should really think about what you post before you do, so you don't have to go back and edit 10 minutes later after someone has already replied. What is boils down to is that you've decided to put a spin on your illegal actions and have tried to justify it with the excuse that we are being brainwashed and having our rights stolen by a company that never asked you to buy the item, you wanted it, you pay for it.

 

[Dracil]

Look at the posting time. I don't edit stuff after people have replied. "10 minutes" would mean that I made an edit at 4:10 PST, since your post was at 4:00 PST, but my post was edited at 3:57 PST. If you know how to use a dictionary, why did you have trouble using the proper definition then? And I do know the difference between what is and isn't stealing. I'm not the one who made a mistake in using the dictionary. And unlike you, I also have the law's definition on my side.

And I see you've sidestepped portests and civil disobedience again. If you aren't willing to answer that, I don't see the need to answer you either.

 

[seebs]

There are problems with "wouldn't have bought it anyway", the most obvious of which is the simple and pragmatic observation that, in general, copy protection schemes boost sales. Conclusion: If they can't copy it, some people buy it who would otherwise just have copied it.

The way I figure it is this: If I wouldn't be part of their market, then that's fine, and I won't be, and I won't play the game, either. The Bible says that the worker is worthy of his hire. If I wish to partake in the fruits of their labor, I should pay them. This is especially close to my heart, because I make a living selling information; I am a writer and a programmer.

So... I pay for the programs I use, and if I can't justify buying a program, I don't use it. Works for me.

 

[Dracil]

Copy protections also take away your Fair Use rights. I don't see people here complaining about companies "stealing" those rights away from us. That, and the fact that copy protections are generally useless for those who do actually engage in piracy.

That's a good passage from the Bible there, and I respect your decision. The only thing is that, even those who don't purchase the game/software/music will often get involved in the communities, helping it grow, increasing publicity, and generating sales. Which is why it is so hard to argue about piracy as being a solely negative effect on sales. Taken in an abstract way, you are "paying" for it through the future sales generated. Of course, this is only in theory, and it's also likely that no actual future sales are generated.

KenobiKid, you could learn a lot from seebs here in the way he posts.

 

[KenobiKid]

You see no reason to reply because you know that you're wrong. You know exactly what piracy means, you've been spouting off about double meanings so I'd expect you to know. You're stealing and you know it. You have danced around the fact that you are performing illegal actions and you seem to relish in the fact. It doesn't matter if you're stealing money, a car, or some old ladies purse you're steal theif.

Why can't you just pay for it? Why should someone work and have their employer pay for their work and not see a return in their money? What if you were a software desinger or a movie producer would you want people illegaly taking your product?

 

[Dracil]

More rhetoric, name-calling, and conflation of definitions. Like I said, you have a lot you could learn from seebs.

When you learn how to drop all of that and say something of substance so that I don't have to keep repeating myself, I'll get back to you. Otherwise, I have no reason to reply to people who will not listen.

 

[KenobiKid]

I'm not listening because you're trying to convince me that stealing is right. I haven't called you any names I was simply stating that stealing anything makes you a theif, but since you say you haven't stolen anything why would you think this applies to you?

 

[Dracil]

No, stealing is wrong. However, I disagree with the concept of copyright laws in their present state. Thus, I do not truly think that copyright infringement is wrong. Try to understand the difference between those two. If you refuse do so, then we can only agree to disagree, as there can be no discussion held between two people who don't agree on the definitions of the topic at hand. Look at your sentence, you specifically called me a thief. It's possible that is not what you meant, but perhaps you want to fix up the grammar of "you're steal theif" so it'll be more clear what you really meant.

 

[I'ddie4him]

OK, MOD HAT ON....

I have read enough to see that we all agree to disagree. :topic:
I would hope that we can all read well enough to understand what Piracy is......
END of Debate.
Any more like this and the Thread will be CLOSED.


MOD HAT OFF.....

 

[seebs]

Copy protections also take away your Fair Use rights. I don't see people here complaining about companies "stealing" those rights away from us. That, and the fact that copy protections are generally useless for those who do actually engage in piracy.

Don't you worry, I've written a couple of long articles, and gotten them published, on the evils of copy protection. On the whole, copy protection "working" does not come within hailing distance of justifying the inherent evils it imposes on nearly everybody.

The only thing is that, even those who don't purchase the game/software/music will often get involved in the communities, helping it grow, increasing publicity, and generating sales. Which is why it is so hard to argue about piracy as being a solely negative effect on sales. Taken in an abstract way, you are "paying" for it through the future sales generated. Of course, this is only in theory, and it's also likely that no actual future sales are generated.

Yeah. I think there's a lot of secondary and tertiary effects which are, frankly, impossible to adequately take into account.

I personally have strong moral objections to copy protection, and to the use of the word "piracy" to describe "copying without permission". I have convictions against such copying, but I cannot say with certainty whether that's just scruples or an actual moral problem. That's where I am personally drawing the line, but I am inclined to leave this question between the people doing the copying, and God. And, of course, the people whose stuff is copied.

The main problem I see is that nearly all of the rhetoric for justifying copying falls short of explaining why it matters so much that we have more games. The next time you need a game, and don't have any money, download NetHack or Angband. Pick up some text adventures.

Here, I'll contribute:

http://www.flavorplex.com/

Go ahead, download a couple of the games I wrote (well, actually, my friend Kevin is a coathor on Janitor). They're free. You can play 'em all you want.

I don't think the supply of free games is small enough to justify copying games, in general.

 

[CHR15T05]

Well I for one am VERY happy with the way this thread has turned out. I now have a new code of ethics by which to live my life.

"If you can afford something, buy it! If you cant afford something, make a copy! It is fine that others are paying for thier copies while you take yours for free. Make no attempt to earn extra money, budget, or save for the thing you THINK you need. Just take a copy as you are under no moral obligation to spend your money."

I like that! It makes my life easier.

(For those that may be wondering... yes please read the above with a sarcastic tone )

On a seriouse note:
Copyright infrindgement law that stops me "backing up" something I have already paid for... BAD!

Copyright infirdgement law that stops me copying something I have NOT paid for..... GOOD!

Argue with that!

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Copyright infringement is illegal. I thought we were supposed to "obey the law of the land." Granted right/wrong does not always = the law so if they pass a law that says I can't worship God or meet with other Christians or own/read a Bible, etc, then I'll be breaking the law. Other than that, I thought we were specifically told to respect our leaders and obey the laws.

 

[zunga]

the internet is a very dangerous place to be if you have no self control