Violating a licensing agreement does nto mean they lose money. Theres no direct connection sayign that violating copyright/licensing must result in a lost sale or money. And no I'm not saying that only pre agrred upon items should be fair trade. EVERYTHING shoudl be fiar trade. No one should pirate. Pirating is wrong. But Pirating is not the same as A) taking a t angible item or B. not paying for a service that has been performed. The first to result in DIRECT and Abosulte losses while C) pirating a game does not directly create a loss if it creates a loss at all. It is not uncommon for peopel to collect pirate EVERY single game for a console. Does that mean that the company lost 100% of those sales. Abosultely not. It depends what they would have bought had it not been for the pirated copies
Piracy Eithics
- Thread starter JDUK
- Start date
- Status
JDUK
Member
Both are theft and both result in loss Theft makes them illegal and the loss makes them moraly objectionable.klay51 posted on Jul 18 2003 said:
And if where all honest about it, the Piracy "MAY NOT result in loss" probably counts for less than 1% of piracy as a whole.
Last edited by a moderator:
JDUK
Member
So from your point of view would they have brought more titles or less titles if they had 100% of that systmes games pirated?klay51 posted on Jul 18 2003 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
JDUK
Member
Nor did i say it did, i just likened it to the agreement you had with the window cleaner that you would pay for his service. Breaking the software agreement by using an illegal copy means you are not paying the software company just like you would not be paying the cleaner. You are breaking the your deal in just the same way you would with the cleaner.klay51 posted on Jul 18 2003 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, definitely in good humour. No hard feelings
If a person of medium income pirates 100 out of 100 games for a system. They surely would not have paid $50 x100 or $5000 USA dollars. Now lets go back in time and say that copy protection was bullet proof. Clearly that person wouldnt buy 100 games, maybe 20. So the only pirated games they actually lose money on are the oens he would not have bought. Thats just one example. It might not have anything to do with money. Sometimes people copy games that they know are mediocre and not worth the money. But since its free and they are bored they copy it. How can you say in that instance that that took a sale away? However, ecen if they don't always lose money on pirating that does not condone the act in anyway.
It's not the same type of agreement. Everytime you do not pay a barber or window cleaner after he has performed the service HE MUST lose money. Thats the first difference. Now, second is that it was an agreement prior to the service being performed whereas with games it is after. Now u may say that is irrelevant but in these terms its huge. Because the sole reason the money was spent is for you. because you told them to. Whereas with the game they can sell it to other people who actually want it and would have bought it. They don't even lose money if i wouldnt have bought it anyway. 2 very different situations and types of agreements
generalnmx
Playful/Fascist Mod
I actually have to agree with JDUK on one point - I believe that a real software pirate (the one who dumped the first copy) cannot be morally right. Even though they may think what they are doing is for the "greater good", to think that their actions cannot be used for evil is moral nativete. Software pirates don't have the right to make the decision of whether one's work could be used in this manner, since they didn't create it. The same could be said about active distributors of pirated software.
The point I have been trying to make is about the person downloading said pirated software, or more specifically, the actual act of downloading that copy. They could use it for good...or evil.
Old software is indeed a different discussion. There, one could easily make the point about perserving the original intention of the author through a copy of their work, which is (hopefully) not available anymore.
The point I have been trying to make is about the person downloading said pirated software, or more specifically, the actual act of downloading that copy. They could use it for good...or evil.
Old software is indeed a different discussion. There, one could easily make the point about perserving the original intention of the author through a copy of their work, which is (hopefully) not available anymore.
JDUK
Member
I see what you saying in that the cleaner can't sell the service he performed for you to some one else if you dont pay. but a contract is a contract, it your word the nature of it will vary always from contract to contract. The moral point is you agreed to it. and breaking it is amoral and mostly illlegal. The precise nature (although given not the out come) is not really the point
But
The main thing i've been trying to get across is If a pirate owns a game and spouts the usual bull shit "But i wouldnt buy it any way so their not loosing my custom" this wont stop them passing it onto to some one whole would have brought it otherwise. Your single copy's existance does not always represent a lost sale the fact you have it and may/will pass it on freely represents MULTIPLE losses in sales. In your or my (non pirates) hands its inert and causes no lost sales pass it on and it gets passed on and so on and so on and so on, there it becomes volotile and a single copy causes MULTIPLE sales losses. So in the balance of things your copy that u use then buy the CD/game/whatever came from a copy that lost 10, 20 a 100 lost sales.
This does not mean if you are using a copy to try out then its ok, because its not. Its just shows how u having a copy that you say you only have because you wouldnt buy it anyway so they loose nothing actualy effects things
But
I gave you an example of this. If you had a copy if Britney dance thingy (or what ever) what stops you (not you personaly but people) passing it on to some one who would pay for it but wouldnt if they got a copy.
The main thing i've been trying to get across is If a pirate owns a game and spouts the usual bull shit "But i wouldnt buy it any way so their not loosing my custom" this wont stop them passing it onto to some one whole would have brought it otherwise. Your single copy's existance does not always represent a lost sale the fact you have it and may/will pass it on freely represents MULTIPLE losses in sales. In your or my (non pirates) hands its inert and causes no lost sales pass it on and it gets passed on and so on and so on and so on, there it becomes volotile and a single copy causes MULTIPLE sales losses. So in the balance of things your copy that u use then buy the CD/game/whatever came from a copy that lost 10, 20 a 100 lost sales.
This does not mean if you are using a copy to try out then its ok, because its not. Its just shows how u having a copy that you say you only have because you wouldnt buy it anyway so they loose nothing actualy effects things
JDUK
Member
Im sure more than some ppl do thats why 1 in 3 CDs are copies .If you mate was really desperate for halo 2 and you knew he wouldnt buy it, would you not give it to him?
Thanks for the moral tussle i got my GP Mania rank
and the Mrs is going to be super pissed i didnt come to bed.JDUK, I have yet to encounter a retailer here in the states that will issue a refund for software, whether it be for the computer or a gaming console unless the software is defective If someone here in wonderful armpit of the world Michigan knows of one that WILL give a full refund, I will GLADLY give them my hard earned money
knows of one that WILL give a full refund, I will GLADLY give them my hard earned moneyJDUK
Member
Ok im cool with that, Though i would say "doesn't always" is the bedfellow of "mostly does "klay51 posted on Jul 18 2003 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
JDUK
Member
Interesting .... so where do you sit on this?generalnmx posted on Jul 18 2003 said:
Does the "evil" of the original upload out weigh the possible "good" that the downloader could use it for? Or are the mutliple chances of doing "good" worth that origonal moral hurdle? in your opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
generalnmx
Playful/Fascist Mod
As said before, stealing is the act of taking something tangible away.
A developer only thinks and cares about the mass market, ideally. A software pirate who distributes their work takes away an important decision - whether the software should be available freely or not. There is no moral "high ground" here, because only the developer should have the right to make this decision. Whether or not the pirate's intentions were noble, what they did was wrong. The same goes for an active distributor.
That said, I still stand behind my conclusion about downloaders.
A developer only thinks and cares about the mass market, ideally. A software pirate who distributes their work takes away an important decision - whether the software should be available freely or not. There is no moral "high ground" here, because only the developer should have the right to make this decision. Whether or not the pirate's intentions were noble, what they did was wrong. The same goes for an active distributor.
That said, I still stand behind my conclusion about downloaders.
First off, I amazingly agree with almost all of the posts here. Just goes to show how thin the line is. Personally, I think everyone should just adhere to their own moral code, or as has been stated on another thread: "Do what will let you sleep at night." My personal code is to buy a game if I enjoy it, but that doesn't fit for everyone. The discussion has been great, not dropping into mindless bashing, but rather staying worthwile.
Now to, my thoughts: Stealing. Per the dictionary: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully. Hmmm... doesn't say it has to be tangible. You can make use of a copy. Just like you may make use of a stolen car... even if you drop it off somewhere with a full tank of gas and no damage, that doesn't mean it isn't stealing. But as also stated, lets say your wife/parent/child/etc. was dying, and had to get to the hospital in 10 min., 10 miles away. Is it morally wrong to steal the car if NO other options to get there exist?
As to piracy being a victimless crime (most often mentioned here with the "I wouldn't have bought it" excuse). Companies set price based upon a lot of calculations involving the cost to pay people working for them, marketing and advertising, production costs (i.e. the CDs and packaging) and a bunch of other items. After figuring the cost, they figure out how many items they think will sell, then can determine a price to make a profit. In that calculation comes the people who pirate the game. They never contribute any money or sales. Yet the company still makes it's money - it figures out how much to charge to compensate for the piracy. Instead, it's the people who actually purchase the game who end up paying the cost for people to pirate games. Now, I realize there are many holes and catches in this, in that game prices are also influenced by the average game price, and company greed would often dictate just enjoying the higher profit. But, this is not always the case, and if piracy did not exist, game prices on average would be less. But as an example of a bigger cost, if marketing and advertising where for some reason completely unnecessary and did not exist, a MUCH larger portion of the game cost could be removed. So is piracy really the biggest crime out there? IMO, no.
Anyway, my thoughts. I'd apologize for the length, but hey, you didn't have to read this now did ya? Poke holes and flame away, I know the opportunities exist!
Now to, my thoughts: Stealing. Per the dictionary: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully. Hmmm... doesn't say it has to be tangible. You can make use of a copy. Just like you may make use of a stolen car... even if you drop it off somewhere with a full tank of gas and no damage, that doesn't mean it isn't stealing. But as also stated, lets say your wife/parent/child/etc. was dying, and had to get to the hospital in 10 min., 10 miles away. Is it morally wrong to steal the car if NO other options to get there exist?
As to piracy being a victimless crime (most often mentioned here with the "I wouldn't have bought it" excuse). Companies set price based upon a lot of calculations involving the cost to pay people working for them, marketing and advertising, production costs (i.e. the CDs and packaging) and a bunch of other items. After figuring the cost, they figure out how many items they think will sell, then can determine a price to make a profit. In that calculation comes the people who pirate the game. They never contribute any money or sales. Yet the company still makes it's money - it figures out how much to charge to compensate for the piracy. Instead, it's the people who actually purchase the game who end up paying the cost for people to pirate games. Now, I realize there are many holes and catches in this, in that game prices are also influenced by the average game price, and company greed would often dictate just enjoying the higher profit. But, this is not always the case, and if piracy did not exist, game prices on average would be less. But as an example of a bigger cost, if marketing and advertising where for some reason completely unnecessary and did not exist, a MUCH larger portion of the game cost could be removed. So is piracy really the biggest crime out there? IMO, no.
Anyway, my thoughts. I'd apologize for the length, but hey, you didn't have to read this now did ya? Poke holes and flame away, I know the opportunities exist!
Under no circumstances is it legally or ethically acceptable to download copyrighted material of any kind, for any reason. Even if you own a legit copy, you may only back it up yourself, not download someone elses backup of it.
However I still download all sorts of stuff. I'm a poor student who needs a car to get ahead in life. I'm addicted to games and own over ten grand in games and systems. I could either spend my money on stuff I need like textbooks and a car, or I could spend it on the games I crave.
So I download the games. I have no justification for it, it's just something I do because there are things I have to spend money on and I will not give up gaming simply because I don't have to money for it these days.
However I still download all sorts of stuff. I'm a poor student who needs a car to get ahead in life. I'm addicted to games and own over ten grand in games and systems. I could either spend my money on stuff I need like textbooks and a car, or I could spend it on the games I crave.
So I download the games. I have no justification for it, it's just something I do because there are things I have to spend money on and I will not give up gaming simply because I don't have to money for it these days.
JDUK
Member
You gota love bare faced honesty. I think pirates who come up with the babble of excuses you normally see are just clutching at straws so they can "sleep at night" and still get something for nothing. Its refreshing to see some one say its wrong but I do it, coz hey no ones perfect.
Any way I’m of round Rabmozo's house to nick his car, coz mines on its last legs and I cant afford a new one.
<Lion King, sing along mode>
Its the circle of theft..... its the guy in the car park with a slim-jim in his hand, the geek in his bedroom downloading CD's off broadband..... its the circle of theft!
</Lion King, sing along mode>
Just remember unlike my buddy who ransacks on the seven sea's when some one nicks that car you've been saving up for or lifts your text books at uni, they too have their motivation when they steal your stuff......their " I will not give up <insert any thing> simply because I don't have to money for it these days." So don’t go ape shit when it happens just go "oh well what goes around comes around, if I don’t have the decency to stop thieving because its wrong why should others?"
Any way I’m of round Rabmozo's house to nick his car, coz mines on its last legs and I cant afford a new one.
<Lion King, sing along mode>
Its the circle of theft..... its the guy in the car park with a slim-jim in his hand, the geek in his bedroom downloading CD's off broadband..... its the circle of theft!
</Lion King, sing along mode>
Just remember unlike my buddy who ransacks on the seven sea's when some one nicks that car you've been saving up for or lifts your text books at uni, they too have their motivation when they steal your stuff......their " I will not give up <insert any thing> simply because I don't have to money for it these days." So don’t go ape shit when it happens just go "oh well what goes around comes around, if I don’t have the decency to stop thieving because its wrong why should others?"
- Status
